perm filename E88.IN[LET,JMC] blob
sn#861875 filedate 1988-10-05 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00542 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00063 00002 ∂01-Jul-88 0808 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET modified default logic
C00068 00003 ∂01-Jul-88 0900 JMC
C00069 00004 ∂01-Jul-88 1233 simpson@vax.darpa.mil
C00071 00005 ∂01-Jul-88 1256 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: June 1 start date
C00073 00006 ∂01-Jul-88 1309 ME Prancing Pony Bill
C00076 00007 ∂02-Jul-88 1112 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM draconciasis
C00079 00008 ∂02-Jul-88 1112 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM quickie(?)
C00091 00009 ∂02-Jul-88 2352 Qlisp-mailer Farewell party for Gitchang
C00093 00010 ∂03-Jul-88 0852 simpson@vax.darpa.mil re: June 1 start date
C00095 00011 ∂05-Jul-88 0938 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on Thursday
C00096 00012 ∂05-Jul-88 2152 LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Draft Report from Meeting 3
C00145 00013 ∂05-Jul-88 2315 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM draconciasis
C00154 00014 ∂06-Jul-88 0424 nbires!ames!ll-xn!ames!ut-sally!utep-vaxa!gelfond@unidot.uucp
C00157 00015 ∂06-Jul-88 0542 DEK belated congrats
C00158 00016 ∂06-Jul-88 1154 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu
C00169 00017 ∂06-Jul-88 1153 JK Konsynski
C00170 00018 ∂06-Jul-88 1526 CLT 4 seasons
C00171 00019 ∂06-Jul-88 2022 munnari!trlamct.amct.trl.oz.au!andrew@uunet.UU.NET support requested ..
C00178 00020 ∂07-Jul-88 0809 YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Generality in Artificial Intelligence
C00189 00021 ∂07-Jul-88 0853 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU reminder: FormFeed today
C00190 00022 ∂07-Jul-88 0909 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET modified DL
C00192 00023 ∂08-Jul-88 1218 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Dissertation Status Update
C00198 00024 ∂08-Jul-88 1520 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Annual reports
C00203 00025 ∂08-Jul-88 2237 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu thank you
C00205 00026 ∂09-Jul-88 1348 goguen@csl.sri.com Kyoto Prize
C00207 00027 ∂09-Jul-88 1451 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
C00209 00028 ∂09-Jul-88 2057 drl@vuse LISP implmentations
C00212 00029 ∂10-Jul-88 1424 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca congratulations
C00215 00030 ∂10-Jul-88 1515 Mailer failed mail returned
C00216 00031 ∂10-Jul-88 1515 Mailer failed mail returned
C00217 00032 ∂11-Jul-88 1143 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on Thursday
C00220 00033 ∂12-Jul-88 0700 JMC
C00221 00034 ∂12-Jul-88 1239 rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU Re: Iranian Airliner shootdown
C00223 00035 ∂12-Jul-88 1400 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Two things in and of themselves
C00229 00036 ∂12-Jul-88 1614 MPS PTO
C00230 00037 ∂12-Jul-88 1721 Qlisp-mailer meetings
C00232 00038 ∂13-Jul-88 0351 ubc-cs!voda@beaver.cs.washington.edu Trilogy
C00235 00039 ∂13-Jul-88 0746 novavax!proxftl!bill@bikini.cis.ufl.edu metaepistemology discussion
C00242 00040 ∂13-Jul-88 0900 JMC
C00243 00041 ∂13-Jul-88 0904 MPS Interview
C00244 00042 ∂13-Jul-88 0954 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Summary Updates
C00246 00043 ∂13-Jul-88 1115 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu bibliography
C00248 00044 ∂13-Jul-88 1201 levinth@sierra.STANFORD.EDU DARPA Contracts
C00251 00045 ∂13-Jul-88 1226 singh@glacier.stanford.edu Leaving third-world for America
C00257 00046 ∂13-Jul-88 1400 JMC
C00258 00047 ∂13-Jul-88 1500 JMC
C00259 00048 ∂13-Jul-88 1511 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU my vacation
C00261 00049 ∂13-Jul-88 1520 CLT
C00262 00050 ∂13-Jul-88 1522 CLT
C00263 00051 ∂14-Jul-88 0034 Mailer Re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks
C00269 00052 ∂14-Jul-88 0134 Mailer McCarthy Generalizations, Possible End To [was re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks]
C00272 00053 ∂14-Jul-88 0800 JMC
C00273 00054 ∂14-Jul-88 0837 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU [Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Ketonen to 40%]
C00275 00055 ∂14-Jul-88 0837 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU FormFeed to meet today
C00277 00056 ∂14-Jul-88 0900 JMC
C00278 00057 ∂14-Jul-88 1011 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU liberals had better run for the foothills...
C00279 00058 ∂14-Jul-88 1136 JK EDI conference
C00280 00059 ∂14-Jul-88 1300 JMC
C00281 00060 ∂14-Jul-88 1432 CLT
C00282 00061 ∂14-Jul-88 1540 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00286 00062 ∂14-Jul-88 1648 JK EDI
C00287 00063 ∂14-Jul-88 1656 JK
C00288 00064 ∂15-Jul-88 0724 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Comments on Free Will in "Some Philosphical Problems [vis-a-vis] AI"
C00292 00065 ∂15-Jul-88 0900 JMC
C00293 00066 ∂15-Jul-88 1048 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00298 00067 ∂15-Jul-88 1048 VAL
C00299 00068 ∂15-Jul-88 1115 VAL re: reply to message
C00300 00069 ∂15-Jul-88 1134 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00302 00070 ∂15-Jul-88 1252 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Issues Take 2
C00336 00071 ∂16-Jul-88 0813 Mailer Re: protest
C00340 00072 ∂16-Jul-88 0941 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Solid citizens drive me nuts
C00341 00073 ∂16-Jul-88 0943 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: protest
C00342 00074 ∂16-Jul-88 1124 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU freedom of speech
C00343 00075 ∂16-Jul-88 1540 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00345 00076 ∂16-Jul-88 1733 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00346 00077 ∂16-Jul-88 2042 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU a DARPA report
C00353 00078 ∂16-Jul-88 2224 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Candles
C00356 00079 ∂17-Jul-88 0912 RPG Report
C00362 00080 ∂17-Jul-88 1256 VAL
C00363 00081 ∂17-Jul-88 1307 VAL
C00364 00082 ∂17-Jul-88 1342 VAL re: reply to message
C00365 00083 ∂17-Jul-88 2102 @ira.uka.de:siekmann@uklirb.uucp Re: Arkady Rabinov
C00366 00084 ∂18-Jul-88 0650 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
C00370 00085 ∂18-Jul-88 0738 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA re: Comments on Free Will i
C00377 00086 ∂18-Jul-88 0813 MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU contact with von Neumann and Wiener
C00380 00087 ∂18-Jul-88 1024 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU protest
C00382 00088 ∂18-Jul-88 1401 watson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: lyrics to "America" song?
C00384 00089 ∂18-Jul-88 1504 watson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: lyrics to "America" song?
C00386 00090 ∂18-Jul-88 1557 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00387 00091 ∂18-Jul-88 1615 BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Candlelight
C00389 00092 ∂18-Jul-88 1655 Qlisp-mailer this week's Qlisp meeting
C00391 00093 ∂18-Jul-88 1724 VAL contexts
C00392 00094 ∂18-Jul-88 2055 Qlisp-mailer Effect of contention on speedup
C00397 00095 ∂19-Jul-88 1008 VAL Bibel's address after 30 September 1988
C00398 00096 ∂19-Jul-88 1153 S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00400 00097 ∂19-Jul-88 1302 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: miscataloging?
C00402 00098 ∂19-Jul-88 1615 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: protest
C00403 00099 ∂20-Jul-88 0842 boesch@vax.darpa.mil URGENT!!!! Information Needed for Incremental Funding
C00414 00100 ∂20-Jul-88 0953 VAL re: contexts
C00417 00101 ∂20-Jul-88 0959 VAL
C00420 00102 ∂20-Jul-88 1013 MPS Tadlock Infomatics
C00421 00103 ∂20-Jul-88 1023 boesch@vax.darpa.mil Re: URGENT Incrementals
C00423 00104 ∂20-Jul-88 1024 CLT Boesch Message
C00424 00105 ∂20-Jul-88 1110 VAL Papers and books you brought from Russia
C00427 00106 ∂20-Jul-88 1123 VAL Your book
C00428 00107 ∂20-Jul-88 1348 ME SAIL mail
C00429 00108 ∂20-Jul-88 2104 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of June computer charges.
C00432 00109 ∂20-Jul-88 2143 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: US Territory List
C00433 00110 ∂21-Jul-88 0925 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet today
C00435 00111 ∂21-Jul-88 1046 MPS Ill
C00436 00112 ∂21-Jul-88 1500 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil quarterly reports and incremental annual reports
C00439 00113 ∂21-Jul-88 1654 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROJECT SUMMARY UPDATE
C00453 00114 ∂21-Jul-88 1749 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROJECT SUMARY -- CPL
C00460 00115 ∂21-Jul-88 2335 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
C00462 00116 ∂21-Jul-88 2339 Mailer failed mail returned
C00464 00117 ∂22-Jul-88 0801 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
C00470 00118 ∂22-Jul-88 1003 CLT Your summer salary
C00471 00119 ∂22-Jul-88 1004 CLT Ian
C00472 00120 ∂22-Jul-88 1126 LISTSERV%NDSUVM1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Message
C00474 00121 ∂22-Jul-88 1258 JK edi
C00475 00122 ∂22-Jul-88 1304 VAL Suppes's net address
C00476 00123 ∂22-Jul-88 1338 VAL Vladik Kreynovich
C00479 00124 ∂22-Jul-88 1438 VAL
C00480 00125 ∂22-Jul-88 1610 boyer@CLI.COM Computational Logic on the rise
C00482 00126 ∂24-Jul-88 1038 ME dialing to other area codes
C00483 00127 ∂24-Jul-88 1156 JK
C00485 00128 ∂24-Jul-88 1435 Qlisp-mailer Is the Boyer Benchmark a good example?
C00495 00129 ∂25-Jul-88 0224 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Bad taste in Palo Alto
C00497 00130 ∂25-Jul-88 0900 MPS Rodman
C00498 00131 ∂25-Jul-88 1100 JMC
C00499 00132 ∂25-Jul-88 1250 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil [William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>: Annual reports]
C00506 00133 ∂25-Jul-88 1301 JMC
C00507 00134 ∂25-Jul-88 1435 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Our Reporting Requests
C00514 00135 ∂26-Jul-88 0656 JK
C00515 00136 ∂26-Jul-88 1054 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Incremental report due
C00517 00137 ∂26-Jul-88 1127 CLT Incremental report due (Qlisp - task 8)
C00519 00138 ∂26-Jul-88 1730 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Congratulations
C00521 00139 ∂27-Jul-88 2112 JK MAD
C00522 00140 ∂28-Jul-88 1028 VAL
C00523 00141 ∂28-Jul-88 2000 JMC
C00524 00142 ∂29-Jul-88 0826 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Conclusions Take 2
C00561 00143 ∂29-Jul-88 1000 JMC
C00562 00144 ∂29-Jul-88 1548 Qlisp-mailer meeting
C00564 00145 ∂30-Jul-88 1521 RPG CPL Project Summary
C00569 00146 ∂30-Jul-88 1630 Qlisp-mailer Goodbye
C00572 00147 ∂31-Jul-88 1434 LEHMANN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Biodegradeable diapers
C00573 00148 ∂01-Aug-88 0521 boesch@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen: PI Meeting Announcement]
C00577 00149 ∂01-Aug-88 0846 RFN
C00578 00150 ∂01-Aug-88 0930 JMC
C00579 00151 ∂01-Aug-88 1135 TANAKAT%JPNTSCVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C00583 00152 ∂01-Aug-88 1612 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PI Meeting Announcement
C00586 00153 ∂01-Aug-88 2147 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C00588 00154 ∂02-Aug-88 1038 Qlisp-mailer Vacation
C00589 00155 ∂02-Aug-88 1159 BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Biodegradeable diapers
C00592 00156 ∂02-Aug-88 1416 Qlisp-mailer Symbolics multiprocessor
C00595 00157 ∂02-Aug-88 1714 Qlisp-mailer what's new about new-qlisp
C00601 00158 ∂03-Aug-88 0642 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Mail archives
C00609 00159 ∂03-Aug-88 1131 B.BILLL@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Brian Wilson
C00610 00160 ∂03-Aug-88 1133 VAL re: dinner
C00611 00161 ∂03-Aug-88 1154 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
C00613 00162 ∂04-Aug-88 0931 MPS telephone call
C00614 00163 ∂05-Aug-88 0900 JMC
C00615 00164 ∂05-Aug-88 1359 CLT house
C00616 00165 ∂05-Aug-88 1637 GLB report
C00617 00166 ∂05-Aug-88 1649 harnad@Princeton.EDU BBS Call for Commentators: (1) motor control (2) tool use
C00624 00167 ∂06-Aug-88 0212 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Kyoto Prize
C00627 00168 ∂06-Aug-88 2206 Qlisp-mailer meeting with ex-Symbolics multiprocessor people
C00628 00169 ∂07-Aug-88 1826 pratt@jeeves.stanford.edu expansion
C00629 00170 ∂08-Aug-88 0600 JMC
C00630 00171 ∂08-Aug-88 0900 JMC
C00631 00172 ∂08-Aug-88 0925 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Bill Gates
C00634 00173 ∂08-Aug-88 1352 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu access from bitnet.
C00637 00174 ∂08-Aug-88 1426 MPS Phone
C00638 00175 ∂08-Aug-88 2223 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU
C00646 00176 ∂09-Aug-88 0635 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Re: comments
C00648 00177 ∂09-Aug-88 1408 CLT panic postponed
C00649 00178 ∂09-Aug-88 1529 MPS books
C00650 00179 ∂09-Aug-88 1611 MPS
C00651 00180 ∂10-Aug-88 0942 CLT status report - qlisp proposal
C00652 00181 ∂10-Aug-88 1038 MPS phone call
C00653 00182 ∂11-Aug-88 1437 MPS Party Time
C00654 00183 ∂11-Aug-88 1743 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: insurance
C00656 00184 ∂11-Aug-88 2231 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU MacIvory
C00658 00185 ∂12-Aug-88 1010 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: laptops
C00660 00186 ∂12-Aug-88 1329 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Re: Quotation from review
C00661 00187 ∂12-Aug-88 1348 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Re: Quotation from review
C00662 00188 ∂12-Aug-88 1552 allison@shasta.stanford.edu Re: laptops
C00664 00189 ∂12-Aug-88 1554 MPS Books
C00665 00190 ∂13-Aug-88 1000 JMC
C00666 00191 ∂14-Aug-88 0800 JMC
C00667 00192 ∂14-Aug-88 1058 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
C00669 00193 ∂14-Aug-88 1100 JMC
C00670 00194 ∂14-Aug-88 1656 loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu Re: linguistic usage
C00672 00195 ∂14-Aug-88 2058 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
C00673 00196 ∂15-Aug-88 0704 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C00675 00197 ∂15-Aug-88 0949 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Garbage Mounds: Employment For Archaeologists
C00677 00198 ∂15-Aug-88 1100 JMC
C00678 00199 ∂15-Aug-88 1100 JMC
C00681 00200 ∂15-Aug-88 1241 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu RE: comments
C00682 00201 ∂15-Aug-88 1254 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu draft Soviet chapter
C00684 00202 ∂15-Aug-88 1306 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu gneral comments re recently mailed draft
C00691 00203 ∂15-Aug-88 1306 Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM AAAI funding for CLOS workshop
C00698 00204 ∂15-Aug-88 1755 decwrl!pyramid!pyrps5.pyramid.com!barry@labrea.stanford.edu Re: unicycle
C00701 00205 ∂15-Aug-88 1824 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU FYI (From RISKS digest)
C00704 00206 ∂16-Aug-88 1000 JMC
C00705 00207 ∂16-Aug-88 1109 MPS phone call
C00706 00208 ∂16-Aug-88 1215 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Please....
C00708 00209 ∂16-Aug-88 1748 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Re: lunch
C00710 00210 ∂17-Aug-88 0900 JMC
C00711 00211 ∂17-Aug-88 0900 JMC
C00712 00212 ∂17-Aug-88 1012 MPS Tire
C00713 00213 ∂17-Aug-88 1141 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: lunch
C00715 00214 ∂17-Aug-88 1217 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Traffic on Junipero Serra EIR hearing Aug 18
C00717 00215 ∂17-Aug-88 2004 P.PR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: A question about vice presidential nominations
C00718 00216 ∂18-Aug-88 0224 GLB
C00727 00217 ∂18-Aug-88 1230 D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Reed Irvine
C00729 00218 ∂18-Aug-88 1239 D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Reed Irvine
C00732 00219 ∂18-Aug-88 1422 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU beta testing a MacIvory
C00734 00220 ∂18-Aug-88 1721 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
C00736 00221 ∂18-Aug-88 2158 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu Re: The Left's Big Idea
C00738 00222 ∂19-Aug-88 0711 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu test message
C00739 00223 ∂19-Aug-88 1042 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt update?
C00741 00224 ∂19-Aug-88 1052 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu re: The Left's Big Idea
C00742 00225 ∂19-Aug-88 1234 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu RE: re: Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt
C00743 00226 ∂19-Aug-88 1322 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Let Me Be the First...
C00745 00227 ∂19-Aug-88 1409 MPS
C00746 00228 ∂19-Aug-88 1417 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu IBM equipment
C00748 00229 ∂19-Aug-88 1418 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu: IBM equipment]
C00750 00230 ∂19-Aug-88 1521 Mailer Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
C00757 00231 ∂19-Aug-88 1708 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
C00759 00232 ∂20-Aug-88 1021 Mailer failed mail returned
C00760 00233 ∂20-Aug-88 1119 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Trillion dollar deficit
C00762 00234 ∂20-Aug-88 1229 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Trillion dollar deficit
C00764 00235 ∂20-Aug-88 1831 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU IBM RT
C00766 00236 ∂21-Aug-88 1300 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu interview from FRG friend
C00768 00237 ∂21-Aug-88 1908 MAILER-DAEMON@csli.Stanford.EDU Returned mail: Cannot send message for 1 day
C00770 00238 ∂21-Aug-88 1943 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of July computer charges.
C00773 00239 ∂21-Aug-88 2224 andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU Measurement error in the greenhouse theory data
C00775 00240 ∂22-Aug-88 0305 @RELAY.CS.NET:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp Re: new new-qlisp
C00778 00241 ∂22-Aug-88 0410 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu For some reason, I still can't get this through to you. Try asking
C00781 00242 ∂22-Aug-88 0859 RFN
C00782 00243 ∂22-Aug-88 1522 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu more re transfer problem
C00785 00244 ∂22-Aug-88 1702 ME mail transfer problem?
C00786 00245 ∂23-Aug-88 1234 MPS Visitor
C00787 00246 ∂23-Aug-88 1307 MPS PTO
C00788 00247 ∂23-Aug-88 1314 ME mail failures for large messages
C00794 00248 ∂23-Aug-88 1529 Qlisp-mailer Spawning Processes
C00797 00249 ∂23-Aug-88 1715 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Takeuchi and you
C00799 00250 ∂23-Aug-88 1739 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Les Earnest and ACLU
C00801 00251 ∂24-Aug-88 1338 trw@kubera.STANFORD.EDU Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
C00803 00252 ∂24-Aug-88 1433 MPS Russian visitors
C00805 00253 ∂25-Aug-88 0905 MPS Phone Call
C00806 00254 ∂25-Aug-88 1525 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Exec.SummaryDraft
C00838 00255 ∂25-Aug-88 2015 S.SALUT@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: Bush press conference about replacement of Quayle.
C00839 00256 ∂25-Aug-88 2108 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Lisp calclulator
C00843 00257 ∂26-Aug-88 0308 LES re: Bush press conference about replacement of Quayle.
C00844 00258 ∂26-Aug-88 0559 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU re: Exec.SummaryDraft
C00845 00259 ∂26-Aug-88 1034 MPS Phone Call
C00846 00260 ∂26-Aug-88 1227 @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu Re: AI and the Vincennes incident
C00848 00261 ∂26-Aug-88 1305 @RELAY.CS.NET:kam%clover.riec.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET my visit to Stanford
C00851 00262 ∂26-Aug-88 1348 boesch@vax.darpa.mil ISTO PI MEETING
C00860 00263 ∂26-Aug-88 1413 dayal@cca.cca.com Re: ISTO PI MEETING
C00867 00264 ∂26-Aug-88 1620 MPS
C00868 00265 ∂26-Aug-88 2231 Mailer Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
C00871 00266 ∂27-Aug-88 0926 Mailer re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
C00874 00267 ∂27-Aug-88 1037 CLT telescope
C00890 00268 ∂28-Aug-88 1526 RPG NSF
C00894 00269 ∂28-Aug-88 2147 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: re: Exec.SummaryDraft
C00896 00270 ∂28-Aug-88 2148 VAL Soviet visitors
C00897 00271 ∂29-Aug-88 0800 JMC
C00898 00272 ∂29-Aug-88 0901 HILLER@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
C00901 00273 ∂29-Aug-88 1027 ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU congratulations
C00904 00274 ∂29-Aug-88 1155 CLT calls
C00905 00275 ∂29-Aug-88 1157 lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: qualification of previous message
C00910 00276 ∂29-Aug-88 1232 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu new piece for conclusions
C00929 00277 ∂29-Aug-88 1240 ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU RE: re: congratulations
C00932 00278 ∂29-Aug-88 1351 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu export control meeting
C00935 00279 ∂29-Aug-88 1623 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
C00943 00280 ∂29-Aug-88 2045 ME bitnet mail
C00944 00281 ∂30-Aug-88 0916 MPS
C00945 00282 ∂30-Aug-88 1724 RTC Oops
C00951 00283 ∂31-Aug-88 1432 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Research Mentor Info
C00959 00284 ∂31-Aug-88 1526 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A million processes in 10 seconds
C00963 00285 ∂31-Aug-88 1624 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu IBM - RT
C00964 00286 ∂31-Aug-88 1701 VAL Reproduction fees
C00969 00287 ∂31-Aug-88 2119 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Energy Question: What ever happened to SOLAR?
C00970 00288 ∂01-Sep-88 0036 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
C00971 00289 ∂01-Sep-88 0741 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu test message. John: still trying. If this gets to you, I'll try the
C00973 00290 ∂01-Sep-88 0801 JMC
C00974 00291 ∂01-Sep-88 0906 MPS Paycheck
C00975 00292 ∂01-Sep-88 0910 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU Position Paper
C00976 00293 ∂01-Sep-88 0932 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
C00978 00294 ∂01-Sep-88 1001 MPS phone call
C00979 00295 ∂01-Sep-88 1031 pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU letter of reference?
C00982 00296 ∂01-Sep-88 1207 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU RE: A million processes in 10 seconds
C00985 00297 ∂01-Sep-88 1222 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU meeting
C00987 00298 ∂01-Sep-88 1422 schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
C00989 00299 ∂01-Sep-88 1428 MPS Paycheck
C00990 00300 ∂01-Sep-88 1453 VAL NSF proposal
C00992 00301 ∂01-Sep-88 1504 BILLW@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
C00993 00302 ∂01-Sep-88 1506 lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: Special Initiative on Coordination Theory and Technology
C00998 00303 ∂01-Sep-88 1510 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: reply to message
C00999 00304 ∂01-Sep-88 1754 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
C01001 00305 ∂02-Sep-88 0600 JMC
C01002 00306 ∂02-Sep-88 1012 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Re: Lisp calculator
C01005 00307 ∂02-Sep-88 1113 VAL nsf proposal
C01006 00308 ∂02-Sep-88 1652 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU
C01007 00309 ∂02-Sep-88 1658 CLT shankar
C01008 00310 ∂02-Sep-88 1720 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Keller use of Alliant
C01010 00311 ∂02-Sep-88 1747 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU IBM RT
C01012 00312 ∂02-Sep-88 1748 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU Talcott's thesis
C01013 00313 ∂02-Sep-88 1949 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of August computer charges.
C01016 00314 ∂02-Sep-88 1954 pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU re: letter of reference?
C01018 00315 ∂02-Sep-88 2108 CLT Keller use of Alliant
C01019 00316 ∂04-Sep-88 0708 ARK Happy Birthday
C01020 00317 ∂04-Sep-88 0924 DEK happy b'day
C01021 00318 ∂04-Sep-88 1032 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Computer Science Library Committee
C01023 00319 ∂04-Sep-88 1145 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Happy Birthday
C01024 00320 ∂04-Sep-88 1538 VAL
C01025 00321 ∂04-Sep-88 1625 JK EDI
C01026 00322 ∂04-Sep-88 2056 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU report
C01027 00323 ∂04-Sep-88 2231 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: lack of prosperity
C01030 00324 ∂04-Sep-88 2326 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Happy birthday
C01031 00325 ∂05-Sep-88 0600 JMC
C01032 00326 ∂05-Sep-88 0600 JMC
C01033 00327 ∂05-Sep-88 2304 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Ok, see you then!
C01035 00328 ∂05-Sep-88 2333 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Wednesday Qlisp Meeting
C01037 00329 ∂06-Sep-88 0600 JMC
C01038 00330 ∂06-Sep-88 0840 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
C01039 00331 ∂06-Sep-88 0900 JMC
C01040 00332 ∂06-Sep-88 1258 loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu Re: NSF waste [sic]
C01043 00333 ∂06-Sep-88 1300 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: MDA telethon
C01045 00334 ∂06-Sep-88 1311 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Arthur Keller: Alliant maintenance ]
C01049 00335 ∂06-Sep-88 1553 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Chapter conclusions?
C01061 00336 ∂06-Sep-88 1924 RWF dinner
C01062 00337 ∂06-Sep-88 2343 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU All that I know about Tweety
C01064 00338 ∂07-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01065 00339 ∂07-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01066 00340 ∂07-Sep-88 0842 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU new accounts
C01069 00341 ∂07-Sep-88 0900 JMC
C01070 00342 ∂07-Sep-88 0921 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM mathematickle
C01075 00343 ∂07-Sep-88 0937 MPS
C01077 00344 ∂07-Sep-88 1354 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GC is easier with a Zero Garbage Scheduler!?
C01080 00345 ∂07-Sep-88 1406 CLT
C01081 00346 ∂07-Sep-88 1620 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Reading list
C01083 00347 ∂07-Sep-88 1626 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Reading list
C01084 00348 ∂08-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01085 00349 ∂08-Sep-88 0804 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Bush's Error
C01086 00350 ∂08-Sep-88 1001 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu Re: Taxes
C01088 00351 ∂08-Sep-88 1042 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GCD
C01090 00352 ∂08-Sep-88 1119 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU visit Oct 3,4
C01092 00353 ∂08-Sep-88 1200 JMC
C01093 00354 ∂08-Sep-88 1206 VAL Exchange program
C01096 00355 ∂08-Sep-88 1232 VAL
C01097 00356 ∂08-Sep-88 1417 VAL Appendices to the NSF proposal
C01098 00357 ∂08-Sep-88 1804 @forsythe.stanford.edu:ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET Re: bicycle
C01100 00358 ∂09-Sep-88 0900 JMC
C01101 00359 ∂09-Sep-88 0959 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU
C01102 00360 ∂09-Sep-88 1014 CLT portland
C01103 00361 ∂09-Sep-88 1017 MPS
C01104 00362 ∂09-Sep-88 1149 CLT budget
C01105 00363 ∂09-Sep-88 1343 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Summary of Poly GCD improvements
C01110 00364 ∂10-Sep-88 1124 SMC booking
C01111 00365 ∂10-Sep-88 1912 Mailer Re: The Shroud
C01113 00366 ∂11-Sep-88 0356 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu JPL Paper
C01115 00367 ∂11-Sep-88 0900 JMC
C01116 00368 ∂11-Sep-88 1841 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
C01120 00369 ∂11-Sep-88 1841 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
C01122 00370 ∂11-Sep-88 1931 NSH meeting
C01123 00371 ∂11-Sep-88 1959 NSH
C01124 00372 ∂12-Sep-88 0934 CLT qlisp
C01125 00373 ∂12-Sep-88 1120 JK NSF funding for EDI
C01126 00374 ∂12-Sep-88 1208 JK engelmore
C01127 00375 ∂12-Sep-88 1221 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU Qlisp Publications
C01135 00376 ∂12-Sep-88 1619 JSW Orals
C01136 00377 ∂12-Sep-88 1633 MPS phone
C01137 00378 ∂12-Sep-88 2235 rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU Blocks
C01139 00379 ∂12-Sep-88 2328 lipa@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
C01141 00380 ∂13-Sep-88 0001 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re:
C01143 00381 ∂13-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01144 00382 ∂13-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01145 00383 ∂13-Sep-88 0835 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
C01149 00384 ∂13-Sep-88 0845 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROGRAM REVIEW -- CPL
C01151 00385 ∂13-Sep-88 0916 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil URGENT -- PROGRAM BRIEFING
C01156 00386 ∂13-Sep-88 0943 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU blocks
C01158 00387 ∂13-Sep-88 0953 RPG Jack's Program review
C01159 00388 ∂13-Sep-88 0955 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Mental Blocks
C01161 00389 ∂13-Sep-88 0958 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Generalizing My Mental Block
C01163 00390 ∂13-Sep-88 1131 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Memory "blocks"
C01166 00391 ∂13-Sep-88 1211 art@playfair.stanford.edu Blocks
C01168 00392 ∂13-Sep-88 1221 JK
C01170 00393 ∂13-Sep-88 1350 larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
C01172 00394 ∂13-Sep-88 1419 CLT ra
C01173 00395 ∂13-Sep-88 1439 JK
C01175 00396 ∂13-Sep-88 1444 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Orals
C01177 00397 ∂13-Sep-88 1538 RPG Orals
C01178 00398 ∂13-Sep-88 1709 rhw@sierra.STANFORD.EDU survey
C01181 00399 ∂13-Sep-88 1756 rhw@helens.STANFORD.EDU re: survey
C01182 00400 ∂13-Sep-88 1831 mogul@decwrl.dec.com Mental blocks
C01185 00401 ∂14-Sep-88 0300 israel@russell.stanford.edu Re: questions about philosophical terminology
C01187 00402 ∂14-Sep-88 0800 JMC
C01188 00403 ∂14-Sep-88 0801 @forsythe.stanford.edu:MEERSMAN@HTIKUB5.BITNET Contribution to China Proceedings
C01191 00404 ∂14-Sep-88 1023 CLT labrea
C01192 00405 ∂14-Sep-88 1104 MPS China
C01193 00406 ∂14-Sep-88 1131 CLT qlisp
C01198 00407 ∂14-Sep-88 1230 nfields@vax.darpa.mil meetings, continued
C01200 00408 ∂14-Sep-88 1241 CLT qlisp
C01201 00409 ∂14-Sep-88 1442 CLT opera
C01202 00410 ∂14-Sep-88 1501 VAL
C01204 00411 ∂14-Sep-88 1518 ME Pumpkin request
C01205 00412 ∂14-Sep-88 1716 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU A Qlisp Manifesto
C01215 00413 ∂14-Sep-88 1721 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
C01217 00414 ∂15-Sep-88 1122 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu congratulations!
C01218 00415 ∂15-Sep-88 1140 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Categorizing the Problems of Parallel Program Development
C01222 00416 ∂15-Sep-88 1333 VAL
C01223 00417 ∂15-Sep-88 1601 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU check
C01224 00418 ∂15-Sep-88 1618 shankar@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Writeup
C01231 00419 ∂15-Sep-88 1656 @forsythe.stanford.edu:ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET Bike Ride
C01233 00420 ∂15-Sep-88 1827 CLT files
C01234 00421 ∂15-Sep-88 1923 harnad@Princeton.EDU Re: comments on The Intentional Stance
C01236 00422 ∂16-Sep-88 0040 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU re: [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
C01238 00423 ∂16-Sep-88 0325 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Eulerian asymptosy [Was: bogonomial coefficients]
C01243 00424 ∂16-Sep-88 0738 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Call for White Papers - DARPA/ISTO PI Meeting
C01247 00425 ∂16-Sep-88 0940 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU tech reports
C01249 00426 ∂16-Sep-88 1025 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Re: review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
C01251 00427 ∂16-Sep-88 1141 nick@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU I haven't forgotten you
C01253 00428 ∂16-Sep-88 1156 JK DARPA/ISTO
C01254 00429 ∂16-Sep-88 1426 DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA Religion
C01257 00430 ∂16-Sep-88 1428 VAL nsf proposal
C01258 00431 ∂16-Sep-88 1534 DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA re: Religion
C01262 00432 ∂16-Sep-88 1810 simpson@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: Call for White Papers - DARPA/IST]
C01271 00433 ∂17-Sep-88 1119 JK
C01283 00434 ∂17-Sep-88 1120 RPG DARPA
C01284 00435 ∂17-Sep-88 1348 JK
C01285 00436 ∂17-Sep-88 1401 JK cult of personality
C01286 00437 ∂17-Sep-88 1823 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp chronology
C01295 00438 ∂17-Sep-88 2147 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: bicycling
C01297 00439 ∂17-Sep-88 2209 JK
C01298 00440 ∂18-Sep-88 1439 RPG Appointment
C01300 00441 ∂19-Sep-88 0000 JMC
C01301 00442 ∂19-Sep-88 0628 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu Re: common sense knowledge of continuous action
C01303 00443 ∂19-Sep-88 0738 JDP Pat
C01304 00444 ∂19-Sep-88 0750 gjs@ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU chaos
C01307 00445 ∂19-Sep-88 0751 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Appointment
C01309 00446 ∂19-Sep-88 0814 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu
C01318 00447 ∂19-Sep-88 0931 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Memory reference
C01320 00448 ∂19-Sep-88 1154 RPG Appointment
C01321 00449 ∂19-Sep-88 1400 JMC
C01322 00450 ∂19-Sep-88 1446 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
C01328 00451 ∂19-Sep-88 1502 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Memory reference
C01329 00452 ∂19-Sep-88 1505 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Orals schedule
C01331 00453 ∂19-Sep-88 1706 VAL
C01332 00454 ∂19-Sep-88 1723 VAL re: reply to message
C01333 00455 ∂19-Sep-88 1826 VAL re: proposal
C01334 00456 ∂19-Sep-88 1828 stefik.pa@Xerox.COM review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
C01336 00457 ∂19-Sep-88 1834 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Memory reference
C01338 00458 ∂19-Sep-88 2358 VAL re: proposal
C01339 00459 ∂20-Sep-88 0338 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@RELAY.CS.NET:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp [Revolving Seminar 9/22: Tom Knight]
C01345 00460 ∂20-Sep-88 0658 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu
C01353 00461 ∂20-Sep-88 0938 JDP Pat
C01354 00462 ∂20-Sep-88 1000 JMC
C01355 00463 ∂20-Sep-88 1520 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
C01363 00464 ∂20-Sep-88 1522 CLT pullen msg
C01365 00465 ∂20-Sep-88 1622 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: luncheon speech
C01367 00466 ∂20-Sep-88 1635 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
C01368 00467 ∂20-Sep-88 1639 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [sprite@spur.Berkeley.EDU (Sprite OS on SPUR): Hello World]
C01374 00468 ∂20-Sep-88 2209 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
C01377 00469 ∂20-Sep-88 2241 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
C01378 00470 ∂20-Sep-88 2248 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
C01379 00471 ∂21-Sep-88 1111 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu my list
C01381 00472 ∂21-Sep-88 1209 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: luncheon speech
C01383 00473 ∂21-Sep-88 1429 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
C01386 00474 ∂21-Sep-88 1445 JK
C01390 00475 ∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
C01394 00476 ∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
C01405 00477 ∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
C01433 00478 ∂21-Sep-88 2015 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU Re: reply to message
C01435 00479 ∂21-Sep-88 2252 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Fax
C01436 00480 ∂22-Sep-88 0806 BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU Sail line
C01439 00481 ∂22-Sep-88 1039 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: questions about philosophical terminology
C01441 00482 ∂22-Sep-88 1049 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU re: questions about philosophical terminology
C01443 00483 ∂22-Sep-88 1419 MPS
C01444 00484 ∂22-Sep-88 1604 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
C01453 00485 ∂22-Sep-88 1623 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Faculty Report
C01461 00486 ∂22-Sep-88 1752 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Faculty Report
C01463 00487 ∂22-Sep-88 1753 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU 1987-1988 Faculty Report
C01471 00488 ∂23-Sep-88 0824 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Faculty Report
C01474 00489 ∂23-Sep-88 1020 VAL re: reference
C01475 00490 ∂23-Sep-88 1051 CLT Bing
C01476 00491 ∂23-Sep-88 1103 JK proposal
C01477 00492 ∂23-Sep-88 1156 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU book request
C01479 00493 ∂23-Sep-88 1322 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Gang-of-Four
C01481 00494 ∂23-Sep-88 1646 Great-Pumpkin Restored Files
C01482 00495 ∂23-Sep-88 1654 JK meeting
C01483 00496 ∂24-Sep-88 1345 bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@relay.ubc.ca IJCAII Research Excellence Award
C01485 00497 ∂26-Sep-88 0926 EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Psychnet
C01508 00498 ∂26-Sep-88 0943 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: Sorry I forgot
C01509 00499 ∂26-Sep-88 1025 MPS phone call
C01510 00500 ∂26-Sep-88 1026 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to resume on 10/5/88
C01512 00501 ∂26-Sep-88 1041 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
C01516 00502 ∂26-Sep-88 1148 JK
C01521 00503 ∂26-Sep-88 1254 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM wave the rules
C01525 00504 ∂26-Sep-88 1451 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to resume on October 6, not the 5th ...
C01527 00505 ∂26-Sep-88 1604 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU meeting
C01529 00506 ∂26-Sep-88 1814 Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Computational Approaches to Scientific Discovery
C01531 00507 ∂26-Sep-88 1838 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
C01533 00508 ∂27-Sep-88 0934 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM coordination theory
C01535 00509 ∂27-Sep-88 0950 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
C01537 00510 ∂27-Sep-88 0951 JK latest rev
C01538 00511 ∂27-Sep-88 0954 JK latest rev
C01539 00512 ∂27-Sep-88 1047 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
C01541 00513 ∂27-Sep-88 1048 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
C01543 00514 ∂27-Sep-88 1136 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: NBC and Olympics
C01545 00515 ∂27-Sep-88 1156 JK edi
C01546 00516 ∂27-Sep-88 1244 VAL Marek
C01548 00517 ∂27-Sep-88 1341 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:carol@lucid.com new new-qlisp
C01550 00518 ∂27-Sep-88 1445 JK
C01552 00519 ∂27-Sep-88 1457 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
C01554 00520 ∂27-Sep-88 1453 VAL
C01555 00521 ∂27-Sep-88 1546 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil MORE ADMINISTRIVIA
C01563 00522 ∂27-Sep-88 1728 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU curious, but true
C01566 00523 ∂27-Sep-88 2319 @RELAY.CS.NET:ceb@bernina.uucp comp.ai.digest submission: Followup on JMC/Fishwick Diffeq
C01574 00524 ∂28-Sep-88 1139 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
C01577 00525 ∂28-Sep-88 1156 MPS Check
C01578 00526 ∂28-Sep-88 1434 MPS phone call
C01579 00527 ∂28-Sep-88 1528 MPS
C01580 00528 ∂28-Sep-88 1537 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Reports, ARPA Umbrella Contract
C01583 00529 ∂28-Sep-88 1726 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU Computer Algebra System
C01586 00530 ∂28-Sep-88 1735 RPG Qlisp
C01588 00531 ∂28-Sep-88 1944 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Visit Oct 4.
C01590 00532 ∂28-Sep-88 2259 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU a follow up appointment?
C01592 00533 ∂29-Sep-88 0853 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Shuttle landing
C01594 00534 ∂29-Sep-88 1137 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
C01598 00535 ∂29-Sep-88 1427 JK edi
C01599 00536 ∂29-Sep-88 1606 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: Qlisp
C01601 00537 ∂29-Sep-88 1713 RC.STA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01605 00538 ∂29-Sep-88 1901 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Saturday
C01606 00539 ∂29-Sep-88 2229 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Visit Oct 4.
C01607 00540 ∂30-Sep-88 0742 boyer@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Schwartz
C01609 00541 ∂30-Sep-88 1350 CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
C01611 00542 ∂30-Sep-88 1615 schwartz@vax.darpa.mil DARPA/ISTO PI MEETING
C01622 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂01-Jul-88 0808 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET modified default logic
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jul 88 08:08:33 PDT
Received: from unido.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA03002; Fri, 1 Jul 88 11:04:55 EDT
Received: by unido.uucp with uucp;
Fri, 1 Jul 88 13:40:43 +0100
Received: by gmdzi.UUCP id AA11982; Fri, 1 Jul 88 09:55:34 -0200
Message-Id: <8807010755.AA11982@gmdzi.UUCP>
Received: by gmdxps (4.12/4.7) id AA01858; Fri, 1 Jul 88 09:55:17 -0100
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 88 09:55:17 -0100
From: unido!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET (Gerd Brewka)
To: KurtKonolige@ai.sri.com, bibel%ubc.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET, cv00@utep.BITNET,
deKleer@Xerox.com, dlpoole@dragon.waterloo.edu,
ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: modified default logic
I think a somewhat modified version of default logic might be
useful. In Reiter`s DL you get an extension containing B and D
from :A/B, :C/D, notA or notC. This does not correspond to my
intuitions. Moreover, you get an inconsistency from :A/B, notB.
Again, I think it is somewhat funny that the application of
a default is not blocked when it is known that the negation of
its conclusion is true. I propose the following redefinition.
We leave the syntax of DL as it was and replace Reiter`s Gamma
operator by the following two place operator (S,S` are sets of
formulas, R, R` subsets of D):
Gamma(S,R)=(S`,R`) where
1) S` is the minimal set such that
a) W in S`
b) S` is first order closed
c) if (A:B1,...,Bn/C) in D,
A in S`,
and the union of
S,the justifications of R, and {B1,...,Bn,C} is consistent
then C in S`.
2) R` is the set of defaults for which the precondition of c) above
holds.
E is an extension of (D,W) iff there is an R such that (E,R) is a fixed
point of Gamma.
In the case of normal defaults this definition coincides with Reiter`s.
In the first example (see above) we get two extensions, one containing
B, one D. In the second example no inconsistency arises. The default
is not applicable.
This logic has some nice properties. Extensions always exist. Odd loops
yield extensions which correspond to all possible ways of cutting the
loops off. For example the canonical :notA/A is never applied. In contrast
to Morris` modification of AEL no additional premises are used, some of
the defaults are simply not applied.
As far as I can see this also gives a hint of how to revise dependency
directed backtracking in order to get logically founded results. (It seems
to be extremely inefficient to modify the current algorithms such that
they correspond to Morris` minimal augmentation semantics.) Instead of
introducing new justifications in the TMS net some nonmonotonic
justifications should be temporary disabled (i.e. in those situations
where they contribute to an unlabellable odd loop). If this is done right
dependency directed backtracking would always lead to an extension of
the justifications interpreted as defaults.
∂01-Jul-88 0900 JMC
clipboard
∂01-Jul-88 1233 simpson@vax.darpa.mil
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jul 88 12:33:28 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA23880; Fri, 1 Jul 88 15:32:06 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 1 Jul 88 15:33:47-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03126; Fri, 1 Jul 88 15:33:48 EDT
Date: Fri 1 Jul 88 15:33:47-EDT
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: schwartz@vax.darpa.mil, simpson@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <583788827.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <7pz5E@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John: Congratulations on a well deserved achievement. Yet another in your
long list of distinguished rewards! Best wishes. -- Bob Simpson
-------
∂01-Jul-88 1256 simpson@vax.darpa.mil Re: June 1 start date
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Jul 88 12:56:31 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA23926; Fri, 1 Jul 88 15:55:14 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 1 Jul 88 15:56:54-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03147; Fri, 1 Jul 88 15:56:55 EDT
Date: Fri 1 Jul 88 15:56:54-EDT
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: June 1 start date
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: simpson@vax.darpa.mil, CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <583790214.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <gqr#m@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John: I've spoken to Pucci and it seems we're miscommunicating. Pucci recalls
giving you advice about getting help from the QLisp project being supported
by DARPA, which would require program manager approval. But since I'm not the
PM of the QLisp project (I believe it is Bill Scherlis' project) there is not
much I can do for you. By the way, Pucci indicated he thought our contract
would be signed next week. Here's hoping he's right! -- Bob
-------
∂01-Jul-88 1309 ME Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 July 1988
Previous Balance 8.04
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.08
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
0.30 (vending machine)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12.42
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 4/11/88.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂02-Jul-88 1112 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM draconciasis
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jul 88 11:08:03 PDT
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Sat, 2 Jul 88 06:40:43 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 305011; Sat 2-Jul-88 09:42:21 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 65690; Sat 2-Jul-88 06:42:31 PDT
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 06:42 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com>
Subject: draconciasis
To: math-fun@russian.spa.symbolics.com
Cc: rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com,
"ilan@score.stanford.edu"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com,
"jenks@ibm.com"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com
Message-Id: <19880702134210.9.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
From Fourier dragon hacking, I can show that
∞
/===\
! ! 2 K + PHI
∞ 1 - ! ! ( 1 + Z SIN (------- π))
==== ! ! N
\ N = 1 3
> ----------------------------------- = 0
/ K + PHI
====
K = - ∞
for rational PHI and (cabs Z)<2 ∩ (cabs z-i)<1. Empirically, it vanishes ∀
complex PHI and a seemingly much larger set of Z, provided the K and -K terms
are paired. Or perhaps I'm being fooled, and the series actually diverges beyond
where I can compute it, say, at Z = 6.9 + 1.05i. Can anybody see why or where
the series converges? Notice the product for large K can't → 1 because the SIN
is squared. In fact, a naive estimate would be k↑log[3](1+z/2), which, for large
enough z, would endanger the convergence. Who is the new Mark Kac?
∂02-Jul-88 1112 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM quickie(?)
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Jul 88 11:10:46 PDT
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Sat, 2 Jul 88 03:58:13 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 305007; Sat 2-Jul-88 06:59:38 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 65688; Sat 2-Jul-88 03:59:42 PDT
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 03:59 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com>
Subject: quickie(?)
To: rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com
Cc: ACW@ivory.s4cc.symbolics.com, math-fun@russian.spa.symbolics.com,
"ilan@score.stanford.edu"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com
In-Reply-To: <19880628062438.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-Id: <19880702105925.8.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (NIL :ITALIC NIL) "CPTFONTI")
(2 0 (NIL 0) (NIL :ROMAN NIL) "CPTFONT")
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTI, CPTFONT
I managed to squeeze one more analysis session out of Dr. Salamin as he rushed
off on his annual attempt to bag every fourteener in the lower 48. So now I
am completely sane.
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 88 23:24 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 88 12:44 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 88 23:48 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 88 17:33 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 12:44 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 11:50 EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@IVORY.S4CC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 88 23:41 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject to finite acceleration, is it possible to obey an infinitude of
disjoint stop signs in finite time?
I think so. For example, arrange the stop signs as a Cantor set.
Use enough acceleration to cross order-n gaps in (expt 4 (- n)) seconds.
YOW! Extra credit for even dreaming of doing it for an uncountable infinity.
And for slipping through the loophole I left by saying "finite" when I should
have said "bounded".
This raises the stakes. Can you do it for an uncountable set with *bounded*
acceleration?
Yes. Make a Cantoroid set whose order-n gaps are narrow enough to be
crossed in (expt 4 (- n)) seconds at maximum acceleration.
Right. Except you mean *broad* enough.
I do not. There is a maximum gap that can be bridged in T seconds at a
given acceleration. Anything narrower will do.
Naah.
I see. You make the trip longer by removing stop signs because this lengthens the
straightaways.
Supposing that the order-n gaps are
of size α↑n, what is the smallest feasible α?
The President meant to say "the largest feasible α".
Naah.
I see. And by letting α go all the way to 0, thereby deleting just the dyadic
rationals 1/2, 1/4, 3/4, . . ., we can make the trip instantaneously! And here I
thought the Palo Alto traffic engineer was my enemy.
The President, as usual, meant to ask a different question!
α can range up to 1/2, but 1/2 itself diverges.
Well, that's almost the "right" answer to the question I mistakenly asked, but you
forgot a square root. It takes ~ sqrt(α↑n) time to traverse each of the 2↑n gaps
of order n. The sum over n, for convergence, requires the term ratio 2 sqrt(α) < 1
or α < 1/4.
Naah.
But this is paradoxical.
Intuitive argument #1: The larger the gaps, the faster you can get going
before the next stop sign.
Intuitive argument #2: The larger the gaps, the lower the dimension of the
Cantor set of stop signs, and lower dimensional sets are "infinitely smaller".
As α rises to 1/2, the scaling dimension of the set goes to 1.
Which set? I claim the set of gaps has dimension 1, and the set of stop
signs has dimension 1 (and finite measure!) for α < 1/3, and is *empty* for
α > 1/3! (The problem with this α formulation is that you don't have self-
similarity for α ≠ 1/3.)
What I meant to ask was: suppose the 2↑n nth order gaps are formed by
deleting the central β fraction of each of the 2↑n intervals separating the
gaps of lower order. (So that you do have self-similarity.)
What is the smallest (dammit) β consistent with a finite, legal, and
survivable trip?
Answer at end.
This formulation has the additional virtue of having its answer independent
of the initial gap size, whereas the answer for gap(n) := c α↑n depends
critically on c. (The only time you get self-similarity is when c = 1-2α.)
The canonical Cantor set (α = 1/3) is exceptional in conforming to both the
α and β model, and is therefore intuitively misleading.
After two therapy sessions with Salamin, I have reduced my insanity to the
following:
A Cantor set is incomparably larger than the set of endpoints of the deleted
intervals, since the latter are merely countable. (In fact, any set of disjoint
intervals in C is countable.) Thus it shouldn't matter much if we form the
stopping set by deleting closed intervals, which gets rid of all the stop signs
at the triadic rationals. (Preparation C shrinks swollen Cantoroids, but
will it stop the itching?)
However, the interval endpoints are the only ones we have been counting! We
can generalize the notion of legal stopping and smooth starting by requiring
a speed ≤ sqrt(2ε1asε0) whenever we are distanceε1 sε0 from the nearest stop sign.
You might object that I made up this rule retroactively. Tell it to the judge.
Going faster than sqrt(2ε1aSε0) within ε1Sε0 of a stop sign is de facto evidence that you
ran it.
(Why
will there always be a nearest?)
If you made the Cantoroid by deleting open intervals, the set is its own boundary.
But if you deleted closed intervals, there won't usually be nearest point, but it
will be clear how to compute the minimum ε1Sε0.
This will fix the absurdity of the α=0 case,
but leave us with something almost as bad: we can infinitely expedite a trip by
adding an infinitude of stopsigns, in the form of miniature α<1/4 Cantoroids
which narrow the gaps during, say, the α=β=1/3 construction.
Naah.
If Proxmire gets wind of this, you set- and measure-theorists can kiss off your
NSF money.
Here's the fix. Your speed, ds/dt, is limited by sqrt(2ε1aSε0), where ε1Sε0 = ε1Sε0(ε1sε0) is the
distance to the nearest stop sign. The total transit time is πε1dt = ε2πε1dsε0/sqrt(2ε1aSε0).
But when α < 1/3, there is a set of ε1sε0 of positive measure where ε1Sε0 = 0, and the
integral (representing time) blows up. However, to make the intervals feasibly
short, α < 1/4.
Thus, there is no α↑n Cantoroid construction that is negotiable in finite time.
However, if the gaps and subdivided intervals remain in proportion β, then
successive generations of both decrease by the factor (1-β)/2. Thus, the measure
of the stop signs goes like (1-β)↑n to 0, and the gap (duration) series term ratio is
sqrt(2(1-β)). If this is to be <1 (convergenceP), then β > 1/2. (Dr. Salamin,
in his haste, got 7/8. Second opinion, anyone?)
∂02-Jul-88 2352 Qlisp-mailer Farewell party for Gitchang
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Joe Weening <JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 88 16:10:27 PDT
From: Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Farewell party for Gitchang
To: hpp@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, acuff@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, yeager@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
tanaka@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, aap@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
cc: communications@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Office-Phone: (415) 723-8444
Message-ID: <12410936516.51.ENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Please join us to say farewell to Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno, who is
returning to NTT. We will have some cake and ice cream in the Welch
Road Conference Room and patio area, starting at 3PM on WEDNESDAY,
JULY 6th. (Gitchang will disappear shortly thereafter.)
Bob
-------
∂03-Jul-88 0852 simpson@vax.darpa.mil re: June 1 start date
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Jul 88 08:52:00 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA27355; Sun, 3 Jul 88 11:50:35 EDT
Posted-Date: Sun 3 Jul 88 11:52:04-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04294; Sun, 3 Jul 88 11:52:06 EDT
Date: Sun 3 Jul 88 11:52:04-EDT
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: re: June 1 start date
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil, CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <583948324.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <1#sr8q@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John: I'll speak to Pucci again, but he didn't indicate any activity related
to your AI contract was under discussion. If there is something needed from me
to establish a 1 June start date, he didn't mention it. I will be happy to
provide anything he needs, but I have to know about it. -- Bob
-------
∂05-Jul-88 0938 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on Thursday
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jul 88 09:38:08 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA26585; Tue, 5 Jul 88 09:36:58 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 09:36:58 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807051636.AA26585@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to meet on Thursday
... at Rockwell and at noon. See you there!
Matt
∂05-Jul-88 2152 LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Draft Report from Meeting 3
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jul 88 21:52:29 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 5 Jul 88 21:52:45 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 5 Jul 88 21:54:38 PDT
Received: by UMDC (Mailer X1.23b) id 8999; Tue, 05 Jul 88 23:46:07 EDT
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 23:43:21 EDT
From: Ron Larsen <LARSEN%UMDC.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Draft Report from Meeting 3
To: John Jarvis <JFJ@VAX135.ATT.COM>,
Tomas Lozano-Perez <TLP@REAGAN.AI.MIT.EDU>,
Richard P. Paul <LOU@GRASP.CIS.UPENN.EDU>,
Takeo Kanade <KANADE@CS.CMU.EDU>, Russ Ferrell <SIE!RUSS@ARIZONA.EDU>,
George Bekey <BEKEY@POLLUX.USC.EDU>, Ron Lumia <LUMIA@CME-DURER.ARPA>,
John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>,
Del Tesar <TIMAR@EMX.UTEXAS.EDU>
You will soon be receiving a draft of our meeting 3 report in
a US mail package which resembles the following. I will also be
enclosing a copy of the material we presented at NASA HQ on 3/31
for your reference. Thanks for your help.
July 6, 1988
TO: TTAC Members
FROM: Ron Larsen
SUBJECT: Draft Report from Third Meeting
I have enclosed a draft TTAC report from our third meeting
for your review. I have tried to include your contributions to
the maximum extent, while simultaneously striving for a
consistent report which represents something close to a
consensus. Individual comments which I felt had not been
considered sufficiently by the committee to represent a consensus
have been noted as "Observations from individual TTAC members."
You will also find enclosed some presentation material which
Lou Paul, Del Tesar, Ron Lumia, and I used to report on the third
TTAC meeting to Lee Holcomb and Mel Montemerlo at NASA
Headquarters. Giulio Varsi, from JPL, was also present at that
meeting. I believe the meeting was successful in bringing the
TTAC's views effectively to NASA Headquarters.
Please review the enclosed draft report and provide your
comments back to me by Friday, July 22. My first choice would be
to receive your comments electronically at one of the following
addresses:
Bitnet: LARSEN@UMDC
Internet: LARSEN@UMDC.UMD.EDU
Telemail (GSFCMAIL): RLARSEN
Telemail (NASAMAIL): [RLARSEN/GSFC] GSFCMAIL/USA
My second choice would be a written response addressed to:
Ronald L. Larsen
University of Maryland
Central Administration
Adelphi, MD 20783
If all else fails, please call me at (301) 853-3644.
I value your assistance with this, and look forward to
receiving your comments in order to ensure that we submit a truly
fine report to JPL.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Larsen
cc: Giulio Varsi / JPL
Steve Szirmay / JPL
≠
R. L. Larsen July 5, 1988
TeleRobotics Technology Advisory Committee (TTAC)
Summary of Results from Meeting No. 3
March 14-16, 1988
INTRODUCTION
The TeleRobotics Technology Advisory Committee (TTAC) held
its third meeting at JPL on March 14-16, 1988. Dr. Duane Dipprey
welcomed the TTAC to JPL, indicating that JPL has identified
TeleRobotics and Advanced Microelectronics as the two Laboratory
thrusts which are considered strategic foci for JPL's long term
mission-oriented technology development. During this meeting,
the committee had the opportunity to view demonstrations in JPL's
teleoperations and robotics laboratories, to meet with JPL
program management, and to interact with the JPL technical staff.
In attempting to better understand how the TeleRobotics
Program relates to specific JPL mission interests, the TTAC
explored the role of TeleRobotics at JPL as it relates to FTS and
the Mars Rover (as a part of the Mars Sample Return Mission).
The TTAC understands that the Mars Rover is presently only being
studied (there is no specific development activity), but that it
is considered one of JPL's most important future projects. It
SHOULD impact the TeleRobotics program in a major way.
With respect to the FTS program, the TTAC understands JPL's
role as primarily providing GSFC with information, not hardware.
JPL is serving as a consultant to the FTS program. JPL can
deliver algorithms and perhaps some embedded software, but will
not be providing more generic software which would require long-
term support.
JPL identified the purpose of the TTAC meeting as advising
the JPL Program Office at JPL. A report to NASA Headquarters
could be coordinated in the future between the TTAC and JPL.
JPL requested the TTAC to specifically address the following
issues at this meeting:
1. Assessment of progress against stated objectives.
2. Assessment of sufficiency of proposed FY '89 testbed
task sets to measure technical progress and performance
capability with respect to identified flight
applications.
3. Assessment of JPL TeleRobotics Program priorities and
resource commitments vis a vis scientific goals.
MAJOR FINDINGS
The TTAC found the TeleRobotics Program to be technically
sound and continually improving. Most of the research being
conducted in the technology base component of the program is
supportable and defensible. Most of the core research seems
highly relevant to long term NASA needs.
At the September 22-23, 1987, meeting, we advised that the
program could be strengthened by adopting a theme. We suggested
that an appropriate theme may be to focus on issues of robustness
and time insensitivity. JPL has since adopted such a theme and
focus, and the TTAC endorses this action.
Major progress is apparent over the past year. The initial
implementations of demonstration systems are recognized as a
major achievement in which multiple disciplines had to be
successfully integrated.
In addition to progress in the testbeds, some notable
progress has been made in the R&D components of the program. The
work in the Teleoperator Laboratory has progressed far over the
past year and is impressive. The 6 DOF force-reflecting hand
controller has advanced the state of the art internationally.
This work has yet to be integrated into the rest of the
TeleRobotics Program, however. In the Robotics Laboratory, the
TeleRobot Interactive Planning System (TIPS) appears to be well
conceived, fast, and on track to being an effective component of
the overall capability.
The projectized management organization is also paying
dividends. Experienced project management is making a
substantial contribution to establishing and maintaining momentum
within the Program.
JPL has been successful at attracting bright and aggressive
young staff to the TeleRobotics Program. The committee noted, in
particular, the competence and enthusiasm apparent within these
critical staff members.
The TeleRobotics Program at JPL appears to continue to
suffer from marginal funding, however. While the program
laudably attempts to address a full spectrum of activities from
basic research to testbed demonstration, the committee noted some
confusion of purpose and goals in the testbed component, and
believed these to be related to funding issues and priorities.
!
RECOMMENDATIONS
The TTAC's recommendations are organized into seven topics:
1. System architecture & integration
2. Computational support,
3. R&D / Testbed balance,
4. Measures of performance
5. TeleRobot controls,
6. Scientific merit
7. Senior scientific staff,
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE & INTEGRATION
The overall long-term objective of the telerobotics effort
should be to develop the technology base for an integrated
telerobotics system. An essential ingredient is an architecture
to:
(a) support an integrated R&D program at JPL, and
(b) provide a migration path towards an integrated
spaceborne robot.
Of these, (a) is the more important.
The current demo represents an ad hoc gluing together of
independent systems. In the next year the importance of an
architecture will grow. After initial operation of the testbed
in 1989, an architecture will become essential if the testbed is
to become sufficiently flexible.
Carl Ruoff's analysis of architectural issues is excellent,
and displays a deep understanding of these issues. This analysis
has yet to make an impact on the JPL Telerobot architecture,
though. The TTAC does not perceive a strong system architecture
underlying the TeleRobotics Program. Each subsystem appears to
have its own database, constructed manually (e.g., polyhedral
descriptions are different for the vision system than for the
RTC, are only remotely derived from the same representation, and
must both be constructed manually). The Committee continues to
remain convinced that teleoperation and autonomy cannot be
pursued separately. The system architecture must seamlessly
support both.
The committee also notes the commitment of FTS to the NASREM
architecture. Since NASREM has no operational counterpart, and
has not been implemented yet in FTS, many technical questions
remain regarding the suitability of NASREM for real-time space
operations. The Committee advises JPL to consider using the
TeleRobotics Testbed to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate
the NASREM architecture.
JPL has succeeded in building a complex, sensor-based
robotics system capable of autonomously executing a complex task:
the acquisition of a spinning spacecraft. While particular care
has clearly been given to the interfaces between the major
subsystems, the present structure appears both brittle and not
general enough to permit major functional upgrades, such as
adding the teleoperation capability demonstrated in the core
research project. The interfaces as defined appear to be unduly
constraining and confusing. The TTAC recognizes that the system
structure has evolved from prior projects, and that the expedient
necessities of meeting short term demands often run counter to
long term needs for coherency in large systems.
At the logical level, what is needed is a crisper
decomposition of the telerobotics system into components with
defined functions and interconnections. Although telerobotics
applications require distribution of components across long
distances, attention should be given to unifying the databases so
that it is not necessary to input the same world model data more
than once. The communications paths should be general enough to
provide flexibility. In addition, they should allow higher
levels of abstraction.
The architecture should not focus exclusively on run-time.
It also should deal with the build-time, i.e., it should provide
the subsystems for preparing programs and databases that are used
at run-time.
System architecture for an integrated system supporting
remote teleoperation with varying levels of supervisory control
poses fundamental questions appropriate for core research. It
should be understood that the design and implementation of such
an architecture is itself a significant research project.
TeleRobotic systems, requiring seamless coordination among
diverse technologies, present particularly difficult integration
challenges which can only be resolved through system-level
experimentation such as is emerging in the TeleRobotics Testbed.
Much of JPL's current attention to system integration, however,
appears to be focussed on relatively low level communications
issues. Effective system integration will require integration at
architecturally higher levels of abstraction than are provided by
Ethernet protocols, for example.
Observations from individual TTAC members:
1. The most complex polyhedral model JPL deals with has
about 1000 faces. In order to represent a real
satellite accurately, something like 100,000 faces is
more in the right ball park. Since many problems in
computational geometry vary as N**x, it is possible
that AIP and RTC may encounter significant degradation
on real problems.
2. Despite the importance of solid geometry to S&P, RTC,
and AIP, JPL currently doesn't have a solid modeler in
the system. Some investigation should be done to pick
a good one.
3. If the testbed activity is preserved and expected to be
used as a technology demonstrator significantly beyond
the planned 1989 activities then the following
recommendations are made:
(a) The testbed implementors are urged to use a
homogeneous distributed multiprocessor computing
system. A common programming language should also
be used. The basic compute engine should be the
highest performance chip set implementable as a
standard bus-compatible single board computer.
The operating system should include a well defined
communications system enabling low latency
interaction between pairs of processes anywhere in
the system.
(b) The Automation and Robotics program is further
urged to use this same (replicated) system for
both testbed and core research activities.
(c) Local optimization of modules by independent
choice of programming languages and operating
systems is seldom justified from a global systems
perspective. Use of LISP for certain higher level
planning functions is a possible exception.
(d) Well structured layered communications protocols
should be established. Information content must
be independent of the low level media. In
particular, intra and inter processor
communications should appear the same.
(e) A well developed concept of a process should be
used. There should be some balance between size,
processing demand, and scope of individual
processes.
4. After the obviously large initial development effort
for such a system the following advantages accrue:
(a) Cost effectiveness: A SBC back-plane bus system
costs far less per computing mode than the same
capacity obtained from complete stand alone
systems.
(b) Ease of load balancing and expansion.
(c) Common software development tools.
(d) Common libraries, especially for implementing
communications functions.
(e) Minimized cost of maintenance.
(f) Will minimize integrated or long term systems
development activities.
(g) The testbed will be in service for a time long
compared to the lifetime of a particular processor
implementation, 2-3 years. This approach
minimized both the dollar and system development
efforts of upgrading the computing facility.
COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT
The TeleRobotics Program continues to be constrained by
inadequate computational facilities. Recognizing that resource
limits also constrain the rapidity with which JPL can address
this issue, the Committee advises JPL to develop a 5-year plan
for computational support which would enable program managers to
step beyond immediate resource constraints and programmatic
pressures. It is probably advantageous to minimize the variety
of commercial processors, operating systems, and languages, in
order to avoid high maintenance costs. JPL is encouraged to
strive for a high performance computational infrastructure
enabling telerobotic operation at speeds near human performance
levels. The TTAC requests to review the 5-year plan at its next
meeting, to be held in the Fall of 1988.
Observations from individual TTAC members:
1. The project has apparently resigned itself to systems
that will perform autonomous robotics tasks much slower
than humans, on the grounds that 20 MIPS is required to
approach human speeds. It is argued that this is OK
because of the enormous cost of astronaut time,
especially EVA time. It is argued that an astronaut
can start the task and then do something else. This
will often be true, but robotic slowness will
complicate mission planning, and sometimes a task has
to be done between the end of one phase of a mission
and the start of the next.
JPL should investigate the possibility that increased
speed can be obtained. Here are some suggestions:
a. Some parts of an arm motion can be done less
precisely than others.
b. More compliance in end-effectors may reduce
jarring.
c. Putting a processor at each joint may smooth
motions so that less frequent communication with
the main processor can be tolerated.
d. Improved nonlinear servoing algorithms may reduce
the frequencies required.
2. I also think the motion planner in joint space can be
greatly speeded up, although this is not so critical.
3. I am skeptical about the suitability of the N-cube as
the parallel processor. It is best suited for
homogeneous problems like partial differential
equations where all processors are doing the same
tasks. Robotics will involve inhomogeneous
computations with many different size tasks. For this
the Alliant, Sequent, and Encore systems are better
organized. I also recommend queue-based
multiprocessing as done in Stanford's Qlisp and the MIT
Multilisp.
4. I am skeptical about the appropriateness of neural net
computations for general robotics use. The tasks for
which it has been successful are only a small subset of
what a robot system has to do, and may not justify
separate neural net computations.
5. JPL telerobotics has gotten, perhaps unavoidably, in a
very awkward position with its wide variety of
computers, robots, languages, and networks. This
variety seems doomed to increase, and great amounts of
work will be required to maintain system capability
when parts of it are upgraded.
6. Some of the communications problems caused by system
changes may be mitigated by developing higher, perhaps
object-oriented, communications protocols. This could
make a good core research project and might produce
results useful in many NASA activities.
7. The ratio of computer power to manpower has been too
low. In particular, driving the testbed with a
Microvax may have distorted the way programming was
done.
R&D / TESTBED BALANCE
The purpose of the initial phase of the demonstration
testbed is to bring together state-of-the-art robotic components
into a working system to perform a number of different Space
Station tasks. This is expected to demonstrate robotic and
teleoperation capability as well as to identify key core research
areas and to evaluate systems architectures.
JPL expressed concern that the Program's demonstration goals
are subject to frequent redirection in response to changing NASA
understandings of future mission requirements. These changes
were reportedly introducing confusion and instability throughout
the TeleRobotics Program.
The TTAC recommends the purpose of the demonstration testbed
should now shift to evaluate experimentally the results of core
research in order to test its relevance to Space Station tasks.
The testbed could then continue to serve as a source of
inspiration for new core research projects.
A key example of the usefulness of the testbed has been the
establishment of the Telerobot Interactive Planning System to
automate the tedious and difficult job of task programming.
Preliminary research results clearly demonstrate feasibility and
the potential automation of "skill" level programming.
Achievement of this would represent a major contribution to
robotics and Space Station automation.
Another result of the demonstration testbed has been to
reveal the excessive amounts of computation necessary to perform
manipulator control based on current methods and the need for a
new core research project to study alternatives, more intelligent
control techniques, such as feed forward and compliance in the
system.
There is inadequate communication between the R&D and the
Testbed groups currently. This was most evident in the
presentations from the two groups doing AI planning. It is not
evident that the Testbed is providing research questions or needs
to the Core research people. Similarly, it is not evident that
the Core research is having much influence over the direction of
either the present or future demonstrations. The AI Core
research group is working at a very abstract and theoretical
level, unlikely to have any influence on practical mission
requirements in the near future.
Observations from individual TTAC members:
1. Task forces representing both the Core and the Demo
management should be formed, with the explicit goal of
increasing communication and collaboration. Problems
and difficulties arising from the demonstrations should
feed the research agenda; results from research should
be used to drive the design of future demonstrations.
2. Consideration should be given to an organizational
change within JPL, which would result in mergers of
these groups, so that they report to a single
supervisor. Different people within the same group
could then be assigned to research, development,
engineering or demo support tasks.
3. Dr. Bejczy's work on hand controllers and hand design
is not reflected in the 1988 Demo. This is an example
of a mature research project which should strongly
influence the testbed. It is also not evident that the
experience of the testbed is having any influence on
the research in the Teleoperator Laboratory.
MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
All demonstrations require applications targets to focus the
activity. In this case, the primary goal is to provide a
technology base for the remainder of NASA. Hence, OAST's
suggestion of 7 major tasks for the demonstrations has merit.
JPL is advised to avoid specific mission-based applications since
the other centers are already pursuing these applications with
in-depth demonstrations. JPL is encouraged to evaluate these
tasks for common technical requirements. It is suggested that a
matrix of technical needs be formed from these tasks by looking
for common threads which will unify the program. Each technology
discipline should analyze each task for technical drivers for the
future (beyond FTS as well) and tabulate this so that a coherent
program will result. Voids must be targeted if they show up in
this matrix. Imbalances should also be addressed. Such an
analysis can strengthen the technical vitality and certainty of
purpose, making long range planning much more effective. Since
such an analysis is critical to the future, it should be reviewed
in depth by the TTAC at the earliest time (perhaps at a special
meeting). The result would be a report to OAST for long-term
planning and funding.
TELEROBOT CONTROLS
The teleoperation research program has made steady and solid
progress through a systematic effort to pursue research
objectives important to the overall project as well as to
teleoperation research. Especially noteworthy are:
(a) high fidelity force feedback
(b) capacity to disconnect & reconnect the general purpose
master without disturbance
(c) augmentation of operator's performance by automatic
control of some degrees of freedom (e.g., nulling,
pitch and yaw forces), while permitting x,y,z motions
commanded by the operator
In the report from our second meeting (September 22-23,
1987), the Committee advised JPL that "Calibration requirements
appear to be overly severe...", and suggested "that JPL look more
deeply at basic issues of robust control, rather than depend on
precise calibration in the workspace." The TTAC continues to
encourage JPL to emphasize reduced workspace calibration
requirements. This redirection of emphasis could be facilitated
by mounting each robot arm on an independently moveable base, and
mounting the cameras on independently positioned arms, in order
to provide a dynamic relationship between the arms and the
cameras.
JPL has a good appreciation for the future control issues of
flexible, lightweight robot structures and dual arm operation.
It is important to recognize that robotic control will be non-
deterministic and require near real time sensor fusion involving
numerous criteria (stiffness, load capacity, obstacle avoidance,
redundancy, speed, precision, disturbance rejection, etc.).
Awareness of the physical plant is essential numerically, but it
should also be generalized for interactive parametric
determination by the operator from a host computer. This
requires a computationally efficient model so that real time
decision making can be superimposed to meet demanding task
requirements. This requirement is even more severe for multiple
arm operation, which dramatically expands the magnitude of the
control problem. For example, dual arm operation implies a
balance of actuator resources for precise relative interaction of
the end-effectors while controlling force levels.
SCIENTIFIC MERIT
The history of JPL in foundation technologies is well known
to be very broad in order to support a wide range of missions,
many of which are not well understood and for which requirements
are frequently unknown. Since the U.S. Congress mandated a NASA
program in robotics operations in space, JPL has responded with a
major thrust (one of two).
One historical strength at JPL has been that of Dr. A.
Bejczy which has now matured in a demonstration which leads the
nation in its completeness and balance of technologies. This
manual controller work becomes a testbed for which extensive
testing of man-machine (human factors) interactions becomes
possible. Another strength at JPL has been machine vision.
The present testbed shows elements of this history and it is
a useful part of the robotics program. It does not create a
leading edge technology, however. In other technologies, such as
hierarchical control (the control of layered data and decision
information), precision control of robotic structures, etc. a lot
is being done but the traditions at JPL are weak and major
contribution can not be expected here in the near term.
Overall, with the level of funding available, the team is
doing solid scientific work. In order to lead NASA and make a
national contribution, it will be necessary to add depth. This
recommendation should be dealt with as a supplemental funding
opportunity by OAST.
SENIOR SCIENTIFIC STAFF
The TTAC recognizes the excellent technical leadership
provided by senior members of the JPL technical staff, such as
Tony Bejczy and Carl Ruoff. Similar mature leadership is advised
for other technical disciplines, such as controls, artificial
intelligence, and system architecture.
JPL is advised to seek creative ways of attracting senior
scientific leadership in addition to permanent staff hiring.
JPL's Distinguished Visiting Scientist program might be
appropriate to bring additional world-class talent to JPL for one
or two years, for example. JPL may also seek an ongoing
relationship with senior consultants, although this approach
would have to be exercised with great care in order to ensure
maximum benefit to the Program.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
The TTAC believes that NASA is on the threshold of having a
national resource in the JPL TeleRobotics Program. Excellence is
within reach, but the current funding appears to be marginal.
Without appropriate support, a major national opportunity is in
jeopardy. The TTAC reminds JPL and its sponsors that industrial
productivity spinoffs result from R&D advances, not from flight
hardware development. The major contribution to NASA and to the
nation of JPL's TeleRobotics Program should, indeed, be the
products of its research and development.
! ADDENDA TO THE REPORT OF THE THIRD TTAC MEETING
CHAIRMAN'S COMMENT
Several members of the TTAC (Larsen, Paul, Tesar, and Lumia)
and Giulio Varsi (JPL) met with NASA/OAST managers (Holcomb and
Montemerlo) on March 31. The TTAC members reviewed the
Committee's conclusions from the March 14-16, 1988, TTAC meeting.
The materials presented at that meeting are attached to this
report.
The meeting was cordial and very productive. All parties
present benefited from the interaction, with a better
understanding of the issues resulting.
I was particularly struck that the management relationship
between OAST and JPL was not greatly different for this program,
which consumes more than $5M/year, than it is for small research
efforts in the $100K-$500K/year range. This became apparent when
Lee Holcomb and Mel Montemerlo both noted that they had not
received published reports from JPL, nor had they received
regular, written progress reports.
While a small program may be able to maintain some distance
from its sponsor, a program of the size and national visibility
of the JPL TeleRobotics Program can not afford that luxury. I
strongly encourage JPL to keep OAST, its principal sponsor, fully
informed regarding progress and products. OAST should receive
monthly progress reports (brief), quarterly reports (complete),
annual reports (professional), and copies of every published
report produced under the sponsorship of the program.
≠
∂05-Jul-88 2315 @elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM draconciasis
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Jul 88 23:15:11 PDT
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Tue, 5 Jul 88 23:12:44 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 305324; Wed 6-Jul-88 02:13:54 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 65782; Tue 5-Jul-88 23:14:10 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 23:13 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com>
Subject: draconciasis
To: rwg@russian.spa.symbolics.com
Cc: math-fun@russian.spa.symbolics.com,
"ilan@score.stanford.edu"@elephant-butte.scrc.symbolics.com
In-Reply-To: <19880704070729.0.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-Id: <19880706061339.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 88 00:07 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 06:42 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
From Fourier dragon hacking, I can show that
∞
/===\
! ! 2 K + PHI
∞ 1 - ! ! ( 1 + Z SIN (------- π))
==== ! ! N
\ N = 1 3
> ----------------------------------- = 0
/ K + PHI
====
K = - ∞
for rational PHI and (cabs Z)<2 ∩ (cabs z-i)<1.
The first condition is redundant, and I forgot a change of variable. It should
say cabs(Z+2)<2. I.e., it may not converge for any positive z! (Except for
phi = 1/2, where the terms cancel in pairs.)
Empirically, it vanishes ∀
complex PHI and a seemingly much larger set of Z, provided the K and -K terms
are paired. Or perhaps I'm being fooled,
Here's z = .5, phi = .0105
next 4*3↑n terms cumulative 6*3↑n - 2
-0.3471808849940636d0 -0.3471808849940636d0
0.2216219047974376d0 -0.12555898019662598d0
0.08363870621541668d0 -0.0419202739812093d0
0.02798013227691432d0 -0.013940141704294983d0
0.009298630281994999d0 -0.004641511422299984d0
0.003094974476905624d0 -0.0015465369453943603d0
0.0010310970723261545d0 -5.154398730682058d-4
3.4363471063023505d-4 -1.718051624379707d-4
1.1453766880261524d-4 -5.726749363535547d-5
3.8178286702444134d-5 -1.9089206932911337d-5
1.2725819502826011d-5 -6.363387430085326d-6
sure looks smooth enough...
and the series actually diverges beyond
where I can compute it, say, at Z = 6.9 + 1.05i.
Here's z=6.9, phi=.105
next 4*3↑n cumulative 6*3↑n-2
-13.510569716112277d0 -13.510569716112277d0
3.1303084376338983d0 -10.380261278478379d0
6.336450590571206d0 -4.043810687907173d0
2.649173898737096d0 -1.3946367891700766d0
0.9254256793496827d0 -0.46921110982039393d0
0.312359412380977d0 -0.15685169743941696d0
0.10451866472497937d0 -0.052333032714437594d0
0.034876971014418556d0 -0.017456061700019038d0
0.011974469358655114d0 -0.005481592341363924d0
0.003564155148085338d0 -0.0019174371932785855d0
0.3556306308720163d0 0.3537131936787377d0
Notice the cool 100-fold jump in the last segment, after seeming to settle
into a nice tail(n) ~ 1/n convergence pattern. That's after 3↑10 terms!
Talk about your slow fuse. This is even less likely than extended
convergence, and could well be bogus. (Do you believe floating point
answers that take all night?) I'm gonna do it again with a few dozen
errorless circle algorithms to compute the sines.
Sho nuff, here are the cumulatives done with circle flavors (≡ skews)
-13.510569716112277d0
-10.380261278478113d0
-4.043810687906502d0
-1.3946367891669564d0
-0.46921110995343107d0
-0.1568516788415057d0
-0.0523324150946614d0
-0.017449459951328777d0
-0.005816795805493035d0
-0.0019384006938000988d0
-6.293485472086452d-4
-5.988986755962026d-5
Now the (new) last one is too small--very hard to explain, either as an error or a fact.
(If it's an error, it should be large. And I checked the rotors after 3↑11 steps, and
the worst was better than 10↑-10.)
Can anybody see why or where
the series converges? Notice the product for large K can't → 1 because the SIN
is squared. In fact, a naive estimate would be k↑log[3](1+z/2), which, for large
enough z, would endanger the convergence.
I'd've thought 6.9 was large enough.
Who is the new Mark Kac?
Everybody sez Dick Askey. Time to :Load System TeX ...
∂06-Jul-88 0424 nbires!ames!ll-xn!ames!ut-sally!utep-vaxa!gelfond@unidot.uucp
Received: from umunhum.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jul 88 04:24:40 PDT
Received: by umunhum.stanford.edu (1.2/inc-1.2)
id AA26672; Wed, 6 Jul 88 04:24:24 pdt
Received: by ncar.UCAR.EDU (5.58/1.00.UUCP-MOD.8-11-85)
id AA03285; Tue, 5 Jul 88 17:15:28 MDT
Received: Tue, 5 Jul 88 16:15:00 PDT by ames.arc.nasa.gov (5.59/1.2)
Received: from ames.arc.nasa.gov by XN.LL.MIT.EDU; Tue, 5 Jul 88 19:09:38 EDT
Received: Tue, 5 Jul 88 16:13:23 PDT by ames.arc.nasa.gov (5.59/1.2)
Posted-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 16:04:33 MDT
Received: by sally.utexas.edu (5.54/1.13)
id AA10341; Tue, 5 Jul 88 18:00:58 CDT
Received: by utep-vaxa.UUCP (5.51/smail2.2/03-26-87)
id AA14512; Tue, 5 Jul 88 16:04:33 MDT
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 88 16:04:33 MDT
From: ll-xn!ames!ut-sally!utep-vaxa!gelfond@ames.uucp (Dr. Gelfond )
Message-Id: <8807052204.AA14512@utep-vaxa.UUCP>
To: KurtKonolige@ai.sri.com, bibel@ubc.csnet, cv00@utep.bitnet,
deKleer@xerox.com, dlpoole@dragon.waterloo.edu,
ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
val@sail.stanford.edu
Hi, i am trying to check if i can reach you by this line. Please acknowledge.
Can you please try two addresses: gelfond@utep-vaxa.uucp
cv00@utep.bitnet
Thanks.
Michael Gelfond.
∂06-Jul-88 0542 DEK belated congrats
I just returned from three weeks away and was delighted to learn of
your receiving the Kyoto Prize. Sorry I wasn't here to help celebrate
last Friday. Certainly a well deserved honor indeed.
∂06-Jul-88 1154 @RELAY.CS.NET:dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jul 88 11:54:12 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa21153; 6 Jul 88 14:10 EDT
Received: from waterloo.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id ah11817; 6 Jul 88 13:53 EDT
Received: from watdragon by watmath; Wed, 6 Jul 88 12:47:32 EDT
Received: by watdragon; Wed, 6 Jul 88 12:47:28 EDT
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 88 12:47:28 EDT
From: David Poole <dlpoole@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Message-Id: <8807061647.AA28258@watdragon>
To: KurtKonolige@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM, Pp00@UTEP.BITNET, bart@ai.toronto.edu,
brewka@gmdxps.uucp, cv00@UTEP.BITNET, dlpoole@watmath.waterloo.edu,
ginsberg@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, haugh@mmlai.uu.net, horty@CS.CMU.EDU,
jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, myers@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, scott@alberta,
thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU, val@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
I am not sure that Brian fully understands my original example of the
lottery paradox. Let me try to give a concise account of that problem,
and show where the proposed fixes are not adequate (including Brian's denial).
LOTTERY PARADOX REVISITED
What we would like is a general way to represent defaults so that we
can do reasoning with defaults. We would like a methodology for writing
down defaults which then act as we would expect.
The way advertised for circumscription (and it seems as good a way as
anything else proposed) to express the default "birds fly" is by
BIRD(x) & not AB(FLYING,x) => FLIES(x)
to say that this default is not applicable to emus we write
EMU(x) => ab(FLYING,x)
To say that tweety is a bird we can write
BIRD(TWEETY)
Suppose also that we have the possible types of bird in our system
BIRD(x) == EMU(x) or PENGUIN(x) or HUMMINGBIRD(x) or SANDGROPER(x)
... or CANARY(x)
If each of the other types of birds except for canary are abnormal in
some respect (each may be abnormal in different respects) then we conclude
CANARY(TWEETY).
This may or may not be a bad side effect, however something really
strange happens when we also make canary abnormal in some respect.
If we do this, then suddenly we cannot conclude that tweety flies
(as AB(FLYING,TWEETY) is not in all minimal models).
This seems to me to be a very bad technical problem; for things unrelated
to flying having such disasterous side effects to our reasoning about flying.
POSSIBLE RESPONSES
There are a few possible responses that can be (and have been) offered
1. DENIAL that the problem would arise in practice.
This is what I see Brian as trying to do.
Unfortunately THIS IS AN EMPIRICAL QUESTION, NOT A THEORETICAL QUESTION.
Trying to argue this without any empirical data is like what occured
before Galileo had the audacity to actually find out whether heavy
things fell faster than light things, by finding out what happened
in practice, instead of arguing theoretical points.
I don't have lots of data points, but I do know that this problem was
discovered by using our Theorist system, and finding that it had funny
side effects. We don't really know whether this will arise in practice
when we are building big knowledge bases - we have to go and build big
knowledge bases to find out. There are lots of other things that we will
also find out by building and using the systems proposed, it is this
that I was trying to point out in Grassau; it is this that we are trying
do in the Theorist project.
2. TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS.
The point of my broken arm example was to show that the technical solutions
proposed do not work in general. Yes, the broken arms example does work
in normal circumscription (as Brian pointed out) and in Theorist where
we predict what is in every extension. It seems as though any technical
patch up to circumscription to make it not have the side effects above
will get the wrong answer on the broken arms example.
I see this as a challenge to those who like patching up formalisms
to get this to work.
3. BREAKING CONVENTIONS
I see a good argument to say that the above knowledge base is inconsistent
when we view defaults as communication conventions.
The argument goes something like this:
the default "birds fly" means that if I give you a bird which does
not fly then I am going to explicitly tell you that it does not fly
if indeed it does not fly. Thus if I do not tell you that tweety
does not fly, then you know that tweety does not fly.
In the above example the supplier of the information must have broken
this communication convention, as we can prove that tweety is
abnormal in some respect, and so we must be told in which respect
she is abnormal to follow the convention. We were not told this
information, thus the convention was broken.
This seems like a very convincing argument to me (if we mean communication
conventions by our defaults). If we follow this argument to its logical
conclusion, this means that multiple extensions mean that we have broken
our communication conventions. Thus the multiple extension problem is
not a problem to be solved, but indicates a buggy knowledge base which
should be patched up.
4. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHENOMENA
If by defaults we mean some axiomatisation of "typically", then response 3
does not seem applicable. However, then I think we must recognise that
the lottery paradox can arise in the formal systems we have defined so far.
If we claim that the lottery paradox does not arise in the "commonsense"
view of a default, then the formal systems do not characterise our normal
sense of a default. Thus we do not understand the phenomena we are trying
to axiomatise.
WHERE TO LOOK FOR A SOLUTION
I think that the problem with default reasoning is a problem with analysing
arguments for and against propositions;
default reasoning is a form of dialectic reasoning. Defaults are possible
hypotheses that can be used to form a logical argument as to why something
should be predicted (this is the basis of the Theorist project a few of
us have been working on).
There is a simple argument to supposrt the proposition that tweety flies
in the example above (hypothesising "not AB(FLYING,TWEETY)"). There is only
a long and circuitous argument to defeat that argument (namely by assuming
lots of seemingly irrelevant abnormalities). This seems to be the right
intuition; how to formailise it, implement it and to use it in practice
is what we are trying to do. (how was that for a free advertisement).
I think that looking in model theory for our solutions is the wrong place to
look.
David
∂06-Jul-88 1153 JK Konsynski
I talked to him about collaborating on joint research and possibly a DARPA
grant; he is very interested. I will talk to him next week about the basic
literature on the subject so that I can start working on a proposal in a
month or so.
∂06-Jul-88 1526 CLT 4 seasons
There is a $1900 charge on the current AMEX (15-May)
Did you get reimbursed for that?
∂06-Jul-88 2022 munnari!trlamct.amct.trl.oz.au!andrew@uunet.UU.NET support requested ..
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Jul 88 20:22:44 PDT
Received: from munnari.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA13892; Wed, 6 Jul 88 23:22:06 EDT
Received: from trlamct.amct.trl.oz (via goanna) by munnari.oz with SunIII (5.5)
id AA18011; Thu, 7 Jul 88 10:32:44 EST
(from andrew@trlamct.amct.trl.oz for uunet!jmc@sail.stanford.edu)
Received: from orac by trlamct.oz (3.2/OZ-1)
id AA15733; Wed, 6 Jul 88 14:35:24 EST
Message-Id: <8807060435.AA15733@trlamct.oz>
Received: by orac (3.2/OZ-1b)
id AA05977; Wed, 6 Jul 88 14:35:51 EST
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 88 14:35:51 EST
From: munnari!trlamct.oz.au!andrew@uunet.UU.NET (Andrew Jennings)
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: support requested ..
The following is a plea for your support for an idea : a network based AI
journal. You can choose to ignore this, but I think there are some good things
here for AI.
-----------------
What is it about AI that leads to fragmented progress ? Everywhere we can find
projects that attack small aspects of the field, but not a lot of progress in a
landmark sense. The person on ai.list who was looking for agreed landmarks in AI
must have been disappointed.
Rather than bemoan this state, surely we can all do something about it. One of
the problems is communication between researchers. Journals take too long to be
printed, and their scope is usually too narrow. Conferences are great, if you
can attend. For those of us in the nether reaches of the world it is always very
difficult to attend.
My solution : a journal based on the network. Before you reject this idea,
consider the advantages : almost instant publication, guaranteed wide
readership, and very cheap production costs. In fact since so many people have
laser printers, we can perhaps only have the journal in electronic form, with
the readers printing out the articles they want.
Obviously this sort of thing needs quite a large number of people to support it
world wide for it to happen. It needs an editorial board, and it needs a network
of local distributors. We are not yet at the stage where we can mail papers
backwards and forwards across the world, so there have to be intervening stages
to this process.
The pragmatic issues :
Maybe if I describe the process of producing one issue of the journal, this
might convince you of the practicality of the process.
1. Submission of articles. You submit a printed version of the paper to your
local editor. He sends it by ordinary post to a number of reviewers, and the
changes follow the normal cycle for any journal.
2. Acceptance of articles. Once everything is OK, you submit the postscript
version of the paper to your local editor, via e-mail. The editors assemble the
issue and arrange distribution of the journal to the local distributors, again by
e-mail.
3. Distribution of the articles. Local distributors of the journal hold all the
articles and send out copies on demand, via e-mail. I can imagine that local
distributors would be organised in a hierarchy to minimise mail costs. So in my
case there would be a distributor for Victoria, Australia, who sends a copy to
my Lab, and people can print out copies at will.
How to pay for the mail costs ? Subscription to the journal comes at a cost, and
can be collected local to each country, in local currency. The whole thing can
be run on a non-profit basis.
The political issues :
Some people argue that papers are written not to be read, but to get in the
right journals, and to get promotions. What I'm talking about here is a journal
for >researchers< not for politicians. If there are not enough researchers to
get it going, then so be it.
The bottom line :
So what's in it for A.Jennings ? No I'm not suitable for the editorial board, I
just think the idea is worth pursuing. I'm looking forward to reading the
journal, and I am prepared to help with making it happen.
What can I do ?
Volunteer for the editorial board : of course !
UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!trlamct.oz!andrew
ARPA: andrew%trlamct.oz@uunet.uu.net
Andrew Jennings Head, AI Technology Telecom Australia Research Labs
(Postmaster:- This mail has been acknowledged.)
∂07-Jul-88 0809 YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Generality in Artificial Intelligence
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 88 08:07:54 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 7 Jul 88 01:34:02 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 7 Jul 88 01:35:42 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 10:24 O
From: <YLIKOSKI%FINFUN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Generality in Artificial Intelligence
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
X-Original-To: @AILIST, @JMC, YLIKOSKI
Distribution-File:
AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
This entry was inspired by John McCarthy's Turing Award lecture in
Communications of the ACM, December 1987, Generality in Artificial
Intelligence.
> "In my opinion, getting a language for expressing general
> commonsense knowledge for inclusion in a general database is the key
> problem of generality in AI."
What is commonsense knowledge?
Here follows an example where commonsense knowledge plays its part. A
human parses the sentence
"Christine put the candle onto the wooden table, lit a match and lit
it."
The difficulty which humans overcome with commonsense knowledge but
which is hard to a program is to determine whether the last word, the
pronoun "it" refers to the candle or to the table. After all, you can
burn a wooden table.
Probably a human would reason, within less than a second, like this.
"Assume Christine is sane. The event might have taken place at a
party or during her rendezvous with her boyfriend. People who do
things such as taking part in parties most often are sane.
People who are sane are more likely to burn candles than tables.
Therefore, Christine lit the candle, not the table."
It seems to me that the inferences are not so demanding but the
inferencer utilizes a large amount of background knowledge and a good
associative access mechanism.
Thus, it would seem that in order for us to see true commonsense
knowledge exhibited by a program we need:
* a vast amount of knowledge involving the world of a person
in virtual memory. The knowledge involves gardening,
Buddhism, the emotions of an ordinary person and so forth -
its amount might equal a good encyclopaedia.
* a good associative access mechanism. An example of such
an access mechanism is the hashing mechanism of the
Metalevel Reasoning System described in/1/.
What kind of formalism should we use for expressing the commonsense
knowledge?
Modern theoretical philosophy knows of a number of logics with
different expressive power /2/. They form a natural scale for
evaluating different knowledge representation formalisms. For
example, it would be very interesting to know whether Sowa's
Conceptual Structures correspond to a previously known logical system.
I remember having seen a paper which complained that to a certain
extent the KRL is just another syntax for first-order predicate logic.
In my opinion, it is possible that an attempt to express commonsense
knowledge with a formalism is analogous to an attempt to fit a whale
into a tin sardine can. The knowledge of a person has so many nuances
which are well reflected by the richness of the language used in
poetry and fiction (yes, a poem may contain nontrivial knowledge!)
Think of the Earthsea trilogy by Ursula K. LeGuin. The climax of the
trilogy is when Sparrowhawk the wizard saves the world from Cob's evil
deeds by drawing the rune Agnen across the spring of the Dry River:
"'Be thou made whole!' he said in a clear voice, and with his staff
he drew in lines of fire across the gate of rocks a figure: the rune
Agnen, the rune of Ending, which closes roads and is drawn on coffin
lids. And there was then no gap or void place among the boulders.
The door was shut."
Think of how difficult it would be to express that with a formalism,
preserving the emotions and the nuances.
I propose that the usage of *natural language* (augmented with
text-processing, database and NL understanding technology) for
expressing commonsense knowledge be studied.
> "Reasoning and problem-solving programs must eventually allow the
> full use of quantifiers and sets, and have strong enough control
> methods to use them without combinatorial explosion."
It would seem to me that one approach to this problem is the use of
heuristics, and a good way to learn to use heuristics well is to study
how the human brain does it.
Here follows a reference which you may now know and which will certainly
prove useful when studying the heuristic methods the human brain uses.
In 1946, the doctoral dissertation of the Dutch psychologist Adrian
D. de Groot was published. The name of the dissertation is Het
Denken van den Schaaker, The Thinking of a Chess Player.
In the 30's, de Groot was a relatively well-known chess master.
The material of the book has been created by giving chess postitions
to Grandmasters, international masters, national masters and
first-class players and so forth for them to study. The chess master
told aloud how he made the decision which move he thought was the best.
Good players immediately start studying the right alternatives.
Weaker players usually calculate as much but they usually follow
the wrong ideas.
Later in his life, de Groot became the education manager of the
Philips Corporation and the professor of Psychology in Amsterdam
University. His dissertation was translated into English in the
60's in Stanford Institute as "Thought and Choice is Chess".
> "Whenever we write an axiom, a critic can say it is true only in a
> certain context. With a little ingenuity, the critic can usually
> devise a more general context in which the precise form of the axiom
> does not hold. Looking at human reasoning as reflected in language
> emphasizes this point."
I propose that the concept of a theory with a context be formalized.
A theory in logic has a set of true sentences (axioms) and a set of
inference rules which are used to derive theorems from axioms -
therefore, it can be described with a 2-tuple
<axioms, inference_rules>.
A theory with a context would be a 3-tuple
<axioms, inference_rules, context>
where "context" is a set of sentences.
Someone might create interesting theoretical philosophy or mathematical
logic research of this.
References:
/1/ Stuart Russell: The Compleat Guide to MRS, Stanford University
/2/ Antti Hautamaeki, a philosopher friend of mine, personal
communication.
∂07-Jul-88 0853 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU reminder: FormFeed today
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 88 08:53:41 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09495; Thu, 7 Jul 88 08:52:55 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 08:52:55 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807071552.AA09495@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: reminder: FormFeed today
At noon, at Rockwell. That's the 4th floor of 444 High Street. See
you there!
Matt
∂07-Jul-88 0909 unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET modified DL
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Jul 88 09:09:23 PDT
Received: from unido.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA05984; Thu, 7 Jul 88 12:05:00 EDT
Received: by unido.uucp with uucp;
Thu, 7 Jul 88 16:14:38 +0100
Received: by gmdzi.UUCP id AA12455; Thu, 7 Jul 88 17:06:01 -0200
Message-Id: <8807071506.AA12455@gmdzi.UUCP>
Received: by gmdxps (4.12/4.7) id AA04196; Thu, 7 Jul 88 17:05:37 -0100
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 88 17:05:37 -0100
From: unido!gmdxps!brewka@uunet.UU.NET (Gerd Brewka)
To: bibel%ubc.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET, cv00@utep.BITNET, deKleer@Xerox.com,
dlpoole@dragon.waterloo.edu, ginsberg@polya.stanford.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, val@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: modified DL
Meanwhile I realized that my proposal to modify default logic
1. has already been proposed by Lukaszewicz (Comput. Intell. 4 (1988))
2. leads to unwanted extensions. {bird:~abB/flies, penguin:~abP/abB,
bird, penguin} has two extensions in the modified logic. That`s not what
I intended.
∂08-Jul-88 1218 alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU Dissertation Status Update
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jul 88 12:18:15 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 8 Jul 88 12:20:19 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 12:20:19 PDT
From: Alex Bronstein <alex@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: clt@sail.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU, rwf@sail.Stanford.EDU,
horning@src.dec.com
Cc: alex@jessica.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Dissertation Status Update
Dear members of my reading committee,
The PhD program guidelines recommend that we keep our "communications
lines" open yearly, possibly through a meeting. Rather than trying to find
an open slot in the intersection of your four schedules, Carolyn suggested
that I write you a status report. If after reading it you have any question,
I'll gladly come by your office to discuss things further.
STATUS SUMMARY: 50 % done.
The theory has been worked out in great detail, and written up in a
techreport (now in print). Major mechanical proofs demonstrating
its applicability to hardware verification remain to be done.
DETAILS:
- Theory:
I have defined a formal system, with cleanly defined syntax
(describing arbitrary synchronous circuits) and semantics (in terms
of monotonic length-preserving string-functions). This is a MAJOR
improvement over the muddy semi-formalism which I had in my proposal,
which is essentially due to Carolyn's patience in clearing up my mind.
Moreover, I have completed all the theoretical goals I listed in
my proposal:
- Construction of an appropriate domain based on functions
on finite strings, for the semantics of synchronous circuits.
- Mathematical characterization of "Every-Loop-is-Clocked"
circuits.
In the process, I have in fact done a bit more:
- I worked out the foundations of my semantics, essentially
an instance of Moschovakis' abstract induction algebra, and proved
a few results in passing about the domains I'm using (string-domains).
- Intensional versus extensional semantics: whereas my
original view was entirely extensional, I eventually saw the light
in Carolyn's and Moschovakis' work on intensional semantics for
software, and realized the same insights were true for hardware.
Therefore the denotational semantics of my circuits is an intensional
one (based on functionals), from which the extensional semantics is
derived (as least fixed points of the functionals).
- Originally intended as a visualization experiment in Lisp,
I defined an operational semantics (simulation) for synchronous
circuits, and in the last few months, proved the equivalence of the
operational and extensional semantics - a non-trivial exercise.
- Mechanical proofs:
This is the second half!
I have done some experiments on Boyer-Moore while in Austin, mostly
to test representation issues, and 1st-order versus higher-order
issues. However, these questions are not resolved yet.
Currently I'm building up a "goal list" that Carolyn requested, to
serve as a success yardstick for this second half, and also I guess, to
help me get my work done (procrastination and lack of focus being
the biggest PhD killers these days)...
------
∂08-Jul-88 1520 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Annual reports
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jul 88 15:20:23 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA07021; Fri, 8 Jul 88 18:09:03 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 8 Jul 88 18:09:46-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02230; Fri, 8 Jul 88 18:09:50 EDT
Date: Fri 8 Jul 88 18:09:46-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Annual reports
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Reply-To: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <584402986.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PI Community:
I am sorry to have to make additional requests for information, now
that you have so recently completed the quarterly reports, but we are
now needing a small amount of additional information in order to put
out the first set of incremental funding actions for FY89.
We will extrapolate from the fiscal information you submitted with the
recent quarterly reports (unless you are easily able to provide more
recent figures).
We require some technical information concerning progress in the past
FY and plans for the next. Please send this in the form of a mail
message. No fancy typesetting is required. The total length should
be not more than several paragraphs. You may want to recycle items
from quarterly reports. Send the responses to NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil.
More specifically:
(1) Accomplishments for FY88. Include about three to five specific
items. One or two sentences only for each should be provided. These
should be contentful and specific.
(2) Objectives for FY89. Again, include three to five specific items.
If your project consumes ANY FY88 funds, you should include something
in item (1), even if you are only under anticipatory costs.
PLEASE send us a project mailbox name, as described in the request for
quarterly reports. If your current address is the right address to
use, please say so.
We are trying to keep your paperwork to a minimum, which is why we are
requesting only this limited amount of information instead of the
usual full annual report.
We will, however, be asking you very soon to help us update our
internal project summary documents. I will send out (via netmail)
portions of the description of your project that we require for our
internal records. I will ask for fast turnaround at editing this to
bring it up to date. I expect these to go out next Wednesday morning,
with a response requested by the following Monday.
Summary:
(0) Please send your response to NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil.
Do this no later than Sunday 17 July (so we have
it Monday morning).
(1) Accomplishments for FY88.
(2) Objectives for FY89.
(3) Project mailbox information.
(4) Prepare to wordsmith our internal summary.
If you have questions, please call Nicole Fields at (202)695-9373.
Thanks!!
Bill
-------
∂08-Jul-88 2237 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu thank you
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jul 88 22:36:56 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 22:18 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: thank you
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
Many thanks for all the work and thought at our July 6-7 meeting!!
I think we had a very productive 2 (long..) days.
Now we just have to see it through to the end...
∂09-Jul-88 1348 goguen@csl.sri.com Kyoto Prize
Received: from athos.csl.sri.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 88 13:48:17 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST.CSL.SRI.COM by athos.csl.sri.com (4.0/4.16b)
id AA09668 for jmc@sail.stanford.edu; Sat, 9 Jul 88 13:45:09 PDT
Message-Id: <8807092045.AA09668@athos.csl.sri.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Kyoto Prize
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 88 13:45:08 -0700
From: goguen@csl.sri.com
Dear John,
I just got a letter from Inamori stating that you have received the Kyoto
Prize! Congratulations!!! (Although I cannot say that I am surprised.)
Cheers,
Joseph
--------
∂09-Jul-88 1451 goguen@csl.sri.com Re: Kyoto Prize
Received: from athos.csl.sri.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 88 14:50:50 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST.CSL.SRI.COM by athos.csl.sri.com (4.0/4.16b)
id AA09768 for JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 9 Jul 88 14:47:52 PDT
Message-Id: <8807092147.AA09768@athos.csl.sri.com>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: goguen@csl.sri.com
Subject: Re: Kyoto Prize
In-Reply-To: Your message of 09 Jul 88 14:39:00 -0700.
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 88 14:47:50 -0700
From: goguen@csl.sri.com
By the way John, did you know that I am moving to Oxford quite soon? I
will be the new "Professor of Computing Science." So please consider
visiting there if it some day, some how fits into your plans; we would
certainly be delighted.
Cheers,
Joseph
--------
∂09-Jul-88 2057 drl@vuse LISP implmentations
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Jul 88 20:56:56 PDT
Received: from [129.59.100.1] by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14)
id AA16257; Sat, 9 Jul 88 23:56:16 EDT
Received: by vuse.vanderbilt.edu (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA05806; Sat, 9 Jul 88 22:55:47 CDT
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 22:55:47 CDT
From: drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn)
Message-Id: <8807100355.AA05806@vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: LISP implmentations
Dr. McCarthy,
in the course of writing my master's thesis on some aspects of
the Franz LISP system, I have become curious about something. I am
trying to give an explanation of why LISP is an interpreted language
instead of compiled (given that there are programs called LISP
compilers) that even the computer illiterate can understand. In your
August '78 SIGPLAN article on the history of LISP, you state that your
group originally planned to produce a compiler but ended up with an
interpreter instead.
As the father of LISP, are you aware of any implementation of
LISP which does not use an interpreter? I don't think it is
impossible (or particularly worthwhile) but have never heard of any
such implementation.
Thanks for your time,
David Linn
drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (probably not what's in the header)
∂10-Jul-88 1424 @RELAY.CS.NET:bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca congratulations
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Jul 88 14:24:32 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa20325; 10 Jul 88 17:21 EDT
Received: from ubc by RELAY.CS.NET id aa02673; 10 Jul 88 17:15 EDT
Received: by ean.ubc.ca id AA05717; Sun, 10 Jul 88 13:57:03 pdt
Date: 10 Jul 88 13:58 -0700
From: Wolfgang Bibel <bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@ean.ubc.ca>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <1336*bibel@vision.ubc.cdn>
Subject: congratulations
John,
My sincerest congratulations for you receiving The Kyoto Prize in
Advanced Technology for 1988. It is with pride having had several times
the occasion to spend fascinating hours with you, such as the ones in
the Deutsche Museum in Munich where you gave me one more demonstration
of your unique mental faculties. I wished my own recommendation to The
Inamori Foundation that I already made for the 1985 prize had at least
a little influence in their perfect choice since serving a great man
compensates somewhat the frustration of lacking such faculties oneself.
Although I know that you might be more embarrassed by such words than
pleased I thought this is the right occasion to express openly my
deep reverence.
Wolfgang
∂10-Jul-88 1515 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
gelfond@utep-vaxa.uucp
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
10-Jul-88 1515 JMC acknowledgment
To: gelfond@utep-vaxa.uucp, cv00@utep.bitnet
I would also like to know which of the above works to reach you.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂10-Jul-88 1515 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to the address(es) below
because the destination Host Name(s) are Unknown:
cv00@utep.bitnet
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
10-Jul-88 1515 JMC acknowledgment
To: gelfond@utep-vaxa.uucp, cv00@utep.bitnet
I would also like to know which of the above works to reach you.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂11-Jul-88 1143 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet on Thursday
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Jul 88 11:43:05 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA26529; Mon, 11 Jul 88 11:40:43 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 88 11:40:43 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807111840.AA26529@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to meet on Thursday
... at Rockwell again, unless I hear complaints. Dave has the floor
(if he's going to be there), since he got bumped last week.
See you there!
Matt
∂12-Jul-88 0700 JMC
old passport
∂12-Jul-88 1239 rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU Re: Iranian Airliner shootdown
Received: from cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jul 88 12:39:26 PDT
Received: by cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 12 Jul 88 12:40:58 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 12:40:58 PDT
From: rustcat@cnc-sun.Stanford.EDU (Prabhakar Vallury)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: Iranian Airliner shootdown
Please spare me the patronizing tone. I meant exactly what I said. War
presupposes the existence of the grunts. If people had the intelligence
to realize this, then there would be no armies.
If you have something to say against that, please do so directly. Such
nonsense about third world students could only reflect the ridiculous
sense of superiority that seems so rampant of late.
Thank you.
-- Vallury Prabhakar
∂12-Jul-88 1400 mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA Two things in and of themselves
Received: from CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU (YALE-CELRAY.ARPA) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jul 88 14:00:09 PDT
Received: by CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU; Tue, 12 Jul 88 16:55:59 EDT
From: Drew McDermott <mcdermott-drew@YALE.ARPA>
Full-Name: Drew McDermott
Message-Id: <8807122055.AA23752@CELRAY.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 16:55:53 EDT
Subject: Two things in and of themselves
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
John --
(1) I am teaching a course in the fall on Computers for Poets,
wherein we will try to discuss various implications of computing
and such. One topic that seems interesting is the computing
problems of SDI. It's not hard to find sources of anti-SDI
literature, but the pro-side is underrepresented. I recall your
once opining that those who thought SDI couldn't be programmed
were all wrong. Did you ever write your thoughts down? Has
anyone else?
(2) I read your "Ding an Sich" paper with some interest. (I failed
to save it, so perhaps you could send me a copy.) I agree with you -- up
to a point. If our universe is being simulated on a Big Computer,
there is obviously no way we could ever know it (unless the creatures
running it chose to inform us).
On the other hand, I'm not sure this is what Kant had in mind, and I
have always found his doctrine to be rather pernicious. For example,
Kant held that our minds had both a phenomenal and a noumenal existence.
That is, we are aware of our own thoughts as phenomena, entities known
through experience, but our mind must also exist "in themselves," in a
way we can know nothing of. Hence, he concluded, although from a
phenomenal view our minds cannot be free from causality, because the
imposition of causality is a condition of having coherent experience
of our minds in the first place, it is still possible that "in themselves,"
in some unknowable way, our minds are free.
I imagine you will agree that this is convenient nonsense. Besides
being wishful thinking, it overlooks the fact that at the level of
things in themselves what we call objects might not exist at all, or
be very hard to pick out.
Well, you probably don't care much what Kant thought. How about this
for an objection: Suppose the same universe could be simulated on two
quite different computers. It seems odd that for the inhabitants of the
two copies of the same universe "things in themselves" were definitely
distinct. By hypothesis, there is no experiment they can do that can
distinguish between the two machines. I am not trying to make a
verificationist point here, but only to argue that the universe they are
in has a reality of its own, independent of where it is simulated or whether
it is simulated at all. If we apply this viewpoint to our own world,
we arrive at the idea that quarks are all we have, and that it really
doesn't matter how they are being simulated. After all, we might
be written in a high-level language, and the hardware might change
completely in midstream, without our being aware of it. If the phrase
"things in themselves" refers just to the layout of the machine room,
it isn't a very interesting concept.
I realize this is incoherent, but perhaps I can be clearer later about
why ultimately the concept of "Ding an Sich" seems useless to me.
-- Drew
-------
∂12-Jul-88 1614 MPS PTO
I am leaving for the day. It is now 4:15. There is
no more work to do today. See you tomorrow.
Pat
∂12-Jul-88 1721 Qlisp-mailer meetings
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Jul 88 17:21:22 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02958; Tue, 12 Jul 88 17:21:20 PDT
Message-Id: <8807130021.AA02958@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meetings
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 17:21:18 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Sorry about the late announcement, but tomorrow's meeting will be at
noon in MJH301. The primary item on the agenda will be:
"What makes a good set of benchmarks for parallel lisps?" (inspired by
recent experiments with parallelizing RPG's benchmarks).
Are there objections to the next meeting being next wednesday at 3:30?
We would like to have Professor Ito attend (and give a talk) and he
will not be present till then. Send me mail if you can't make it and I
will try for a better time.
∂13-Jul-88 0351 ubc-cs!voda@beaver.cs.washington.edu Trilogy
Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 03:51:20 PDT
Received: by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.52.1/6.12)
id AA15362; Wed, 13 Jul 88 03:50:47 PDT
Return-Path: <ubc-cs!voda@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Received: from fs1.cs.ubc.ca by cs.ubc.ca id AA02318; Tue, 12 Jul 88 19:48:53 pdt
Received: by fs1.cs.ubc.ca id AA14995; Tue, 12 Jul 88 19:49:28 PDT
Date: 12 Jul 88 19:48 -0700
From: Paul Voda <ubc-cs!voda@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
To: John McCarthy <uw-beaver!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
In-Reply-To: <#Aw5d@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <263*voda@cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Trilogy
I will send send you my theoretic papers on Trilogy and also some promotional
materials on its implementation (it's only $99).
I have been promoting the use of S-expressions as the basic domain (instead
of Herbrand universes) for logic programming for 4 years now. All the values
in Trilogy are nothin else but S-expressions. But we were able to incorporate
all Pascal-like types into Trilogy by representing them as subsets of S-expressions.
For instance arrays are but lists of a fixed length, logically that is.
Implementationally they are implemented as vectors so have a fast access.
I think that we have succeeded in Trilogy of having both impeccable logic
and efficient representation. On top of the very powerful and nice
data-structures (S-expressions that is), we have in Trilogy a full logic
programming language with constraints (full decision procedure for the
Presburger arithmetic for instance). We do not have a single extra-logical
feature in Trilogy, yet in deterministic situations (non-backtracking ones)
we can generate a code of Pascal-like quality.
Paul Voda
∂13-Jul-88 0746 novavax!proxftl!bill@bikini.cis.ufl.edu metaepistemology discussion
Received: from bikini.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 07:46:13 PDT
Received: by bikini.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/2.21)
id AA10586; Tue, 12 Jul 88 12:30:58 EDT
Received: by novavax.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA04983; 12 Jul 88 09:22:27 EDT (Tue)
Received: by proxftl.com (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA20284; Tue, 12 Jul 88 09:07:15 EDT
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 09:07:15 EDT
From: proxftl!bill@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (T. William Wells)
Message-Id: <8807121307.AA20284@proxftl.com>
To: novavax!uflorida!SAIL.Stanford.EDU!JMC
Subject: metaepistemology discussion
You sent:
> None of the philosophers who did see the beginning of the
> discussion supposed that my position was the same as
> Kant's.
One of my co-workers had saved your message and upon reading my
note sent it to me with some flames. Something like: you told
*John McCarthy* to go study philosophy! What amazing hubris!
But the truth is, I only check the sender of a message to avoid
wasting my time reading mail sent by persons who have proven
themselves to have no useful opinions. And my original note was
predicated on the minimal information found in that one
paragraph. I call 'em like I seem 'em, even when I see only one
leg of the elephant. (Means sometimes sticking elephant feet in
one's mouth, but those are the risks...)
I agree, what you are proposing is not Kantian, though the
single paragraph I saw seemed to be. Just what you are proposing
I do not think I have figured out yet. I'll post or e-mail (as
you wish) my thoughts when I have them.
Also, in your message, dated 20 Jun 88, was this paragraph:
> This illustrates what I mean by metaepistemology. Metaepistemology must
> study what knowledge is possible for intelligent beings in a world to the
> structure of the world and the physical structures and computational
> programs that support scientific activity.
This seems to have been garbled somewhere. Perhaps a line was
deleted? Anyway, it seems to be the critical definition, and I'd
appreciate either a correction or an expansion.
In the mean time, here are some random, possibly irrelevant,
thoughts:
At first blush, this is similar to Descartes' Evil Genius. I'd
imagine that you have gone over this several times and so have a
ready refutation; however, I'd like to see it, if for no other
reason than your arguments will help me to clarify my
understanding of what you are about.
===
Science is in the business of description, division, and
reduction. Your notion seems to imply that at some level, this
could fail. How?
To take your example, in a "world" simulated by a Life automata,
and presuming that the simulated world is one where its
"physicists" could discover the structure of the world down to
some level, how might we expect their "science" to fail?
[The quotes are because I am not willing to accept the validity
of using these terms with their usual meanings in the current
context. Normally, I reject this kind of supposition because
accepting them always seems to lead to radical skepticism.
However, since this is, at the moment, just interesting
speculation, I'll go along with it. I'll also drop the quotes
because typing them is getting tiresome.]
One possibility is that the description at that level can not be
complete: we might imagine that their description is equivalent
to a description in terms of certain Life patterns. Obviously
new ones could pop up which were not included in the original
set. And how would they deal with the non-orderly ones?
However, like particle theorists of our world, wouldn't the
apparent inexhaustibility of the fundamental entities lead them
to speculate? And, couldn't they come up with the correct
answer: that while the entities of the world may not be
divisible, that there are nonetheless components which the world
may be thought of in terms of, and couldn't they eventually come
to a description that is isomorphic to the Life automata?
Perhaps in our world, quarks are just this kind of "component".
There are other possibilities, but I shall refrain from
commenting on them in case I have completely misunderstood you.
∂13-Jul-88 0900 JMC
teller
∂13-Jul-88 0904 MPS Interview
Hean Lee Poh (859-2349) is taking CTL-116 "Critical Thinking
and Creative Problem Solving". What he wants is to talk to
you for about 1/2 hour to discuss the above subject as it
pertains to your career.
Pat
∂13-Jul-88 0954 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Summary Updates
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 09:54:17 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA20728; Wed, 13 Jul 88 10:56:46 EDT
Posted-Date: Wed 13 Jul 88 10:57:02-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00685; Wed, 13 Jul 88 10:57:04 EDT
Date: Wed 13 Jul 88 10:57:02-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Summary Updates
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <584809022.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to delay sending these out
until next week. If possible, I will try to avoid having to
send them out at all.
Bill
-------
∂13-Jul-88 1115 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu bibliography
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 11:15:09 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 10:45 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: bibliography
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
We need candidates for a modest (as opposed to extensive) bibliography
for our emerging book. Please send these to Marjory as they come to mind.
∂13-Jul-88 1201 levinth@sierra.STANFORD.EDU DARPA Contracts
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 12:01:41 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 13 Jul 88 12:03:06 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 12:03:06 PDT
From: levinth@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Elliott C. Levinthal)
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Subject: DARPA Contracts
John/Carolyn,
I have been in touch with Cornelia Shonkwiler of SPO. She is
responsible for handling the interaction with Pucci. She just called
me and informed me that Pucci expects that the extension to the
present tasks will be signed next week and he is working on taking
care of the overrun costs of the existing tasks. Based on that
conversation there seems to be only a small risk in postponing any
lay-offs. It would be prudent to keep expenses as low as possible
until these matters are officially settled. Everyones intentions seem
good.
My understanding from Cornelia is that the task with Simpson dealing
with AI and Mathematical Theory of Computing is being broken into two
tasks in the new extensions and that there are two "McCarthy"tasks
contracted for under the present tasks. It is with the "overruns" on
these two tasks that he is dealing.
Jack Schwartz did not show up at Snowbird, so Nils had no opportunity
to speak to him.
Elliott
ps Let me know if there is anything else I should be doing.
∂13-Jul-88 1226 singh@glacier.stanford.edu Leaving third-world for America
Received: from glacier.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 12:25:59 PDT
Received: by glacier.stanford.edu; Wed, 13 Jul 88 12:25:29 PDT
Date: 13 Jul 1988 1225-PDT (Wednesday)
From: Harinder Singh <singh@glacier.stanford.edu>
To: su-etc@score.stanford.edu
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Leaving third-world for America
Far from being considered stupid for preferring to
stay on in a third-world country, many people are greatly
admired for doing so. Folks have a variety of reasons for
choosing NOT to live in America; I've seen a bunch of them
in my own family.
My dad declined faculty positions at a number of America's
top schools, including Stanford, in the years after his PhD
from one of America's top schools many years ago. He chose,
instead, to return to India and spend his entire working
career, until retirement, in contributing his bit to the
nation's development; for his work there he was elected
Fellow of the IEEE, perhaps the first such from India.
[Had he done differently I might've been a Stanford-brat
today :-)]
Both my (younger) brothers have elected to stay
in India, despite having visited the US and seeing what
life here does or does not have to offer. They are happily
married, on excellent career tracks, and have gone farther
already in many ways in which I'm way behind due to trade-offs
in moving to America. By no stretch of the imagination do
I consider them stupid; on the contrary, I think they are
very wise to assess life in America from more than just the
flash and glitter and bucks alone. The overall quality
of life IS in many ways much better for them than it is
for me (and for other professionals) in America. [For one
thing, they have the leisure, every day, to spend precious
time with their spouses, families and friends despite the
fact that their wives are also in professional careers.]
A (young) friend of the family handed in his green
card late last year and went back to India for good. Fed
up with the negative aspects of life in America, he said.
[There are a number of very negative aspects to life in
this country, you see, and not just for foreigners alone.]
So wake up and smell the coffee, Professor McCarthy.
Those of us who are here from third-world countries
and might stay for a few years (or possibly even for the
bulk of a working career) do not consider folks `back home'
stupid for not coming here. Quite to the contrary, we _admire_
the clarity and resolve that often leads to their decision.
This is not to say that America does not exert a
big pull, materially and otherwise, on people everywhere
in the world. Interestingly enough, England, Canada, Ireland
and West Germany rank amongst the nations with the highest
immigrants' flux to the US - it is a mistaken stereotype to
think that only third-world folks are tempted to check out
America.
--->>> The key point, again, is that a fair number of people
choose NOT to live in America, even when they have the choice
and green-cards, and are NOT considered stupid by the rest of
us!
Inder
∂13-Jul-88 1400 JMC
Spicer 3-4643
∂13-Jul-88 1500 JMC
go home
∂13-Jul-88 1511 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU my vacation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Jul 88 15:11:00 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06031; Wed, 13 Jul 88 15:10:44 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 88 15:10:44 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807132210.AA06031@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Cc: jmc@sail, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: my vacation
I will leave for vacation on August 3, and return on August 17.
The Lisp Conference precedes, and AAAI succeeds my vacation.
I believe I am going to AAAI but not the Lisp Conference. Is
this correct? -Dan
∂13-Jul-88 1520 CLT
timothy suppertime = 7,(start to) bedtime = 8:30
∂13-Jul-88 1522 CLT
ps if T doesn't eat much supper offer some cheerios and grahm crackers
before bed
∂14-Jul-88 0034 Mailer Re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 00:34:52 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Jul 88 00:32:44-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, singh@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <gCE1b@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12414173683.174.H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Most of my questions remain un-answered as Professor McCarthy
uses the opportunity to run down the Stanford administration (it may
well be deserving of the attack by Prof. McCarthy but not to give him
an excuse here.)
So I won't bring up any new point from his latest response.
I'll just answer one point. Prof. McCarthy says:
``Hmm, while Mr. Singh seems to
regard Indian military service as legitimate, I haven't read
anything that suggests that any of the third world students
regards American military service as legitimate.''
As with your other notions, where did you get this one
Professor? Have you forgotten the numerous firearm/non-violence/foreign
policy discussions in which I'm repeatedly on record for having said
that every nation needs a state-of-technology defensive capability
(and related manpower)?
I've stated that in many, unambiguous ways. At one time I noted
that had it not been for America's military capability in WWII, God only
would know where the liberal hides in Europe would be buried today.
OK, you might not remember everything that transpires on bboard
but do you remember any such statements from me? If your memory is that
weak, please would you consider ceasing to make categorical statements
that are designed to mislead, such as the above?
America needs, and _should_ have, some of its finest people
in uniform. And America _should_ be spending some fraction of its
GNP on defense related research, including weaponry.
I'm merely repeating what I've stated many times before. This
would be un-necessary if you'd stop trying to put words in people's
mouths based on _your_ limited view of what their views might be. [I'm
a third world student, Professor, so your most recent generalization
is immediately rejected as false.]
To answer a question you haven't asked, I also believe that
in many human and political matters America _does_ hold the moral
high ground in the world. This also I've stated before on a number
of occasions. My critical comments about specific US actions/policies
in no way contradict this positive view of the positive sides of America.
Further, I believe that the Soviet Union has perhaps done more `Satanic'
things in this century (eg domestically) than America has (if one can
compare such things.)
I'm sorry if that does not fit into your black and white, to
use an unfortunate phrase, view of the world or comfortable narrow
ideological pigeon holes. That is a large part of the problem with
your sweeping generalizations, Professor.
Finally, someone like you who doesn't hesitate to put some
spin on stuff to twist an unfair hurt in someone else has no business
complaining when others cause you some in return. Develop a thicker
skin, Professor, if you want to be initiating under-handed or `hardball'
attacks. [Look at me - whenever I've tweaked somebody for effect I've
put up with the inevitable flak that follows :-)]
--->>> Now, let's get back to the questions I posed to you as the
thought experiment. Assume that Stanford's dastardly administration
is not a factor in your answers and let's hear the answers, given a
`fair and ideal' university situation.
Listening again,
Inder
-------
∂14-Jul-88 0134 Mailer McCarthy Generalizations, Possible End To; [was re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks]
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 01:34:00 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Jul 88 01:31:54-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: McCarthy Generalizations, Possible End To; [was re: Singh's analogy with racial remarks]
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, singh@GLACIER.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <uCPfC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12414184453.172.H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Great! I seem to have qualified as at least one exception
to the Professor's generalizations. What wonders can be worked by
sticking to actual facts. With a little more effort _each_ of the
recently disputed `McCarthy Generalizations' could be demolished
completely :-)
Prof. McCarthy says:
``I don't think Mr. Singh has a right to complain about including other
matters along with a reply to his remarks. .''
Let's look at some immediately verifiable facts again. I
couldn't care less what else Prof. McCarthy drags in so long as
he answers the original questions posed to him; the objection, if
any, arises when he drags in extraneous stuff _instead_ of answering
any difficult questions.
He says, further, `` Answering him isn't my sole purpose in
contributing to BBOARD...''
Dang! I'd got it all wrong, Professor. I thought for a while
there that answering me was _everyone's_ purpose in contributing to
bboard. Sho' glad you set me straight on that one. Mah Mama would
approve.
Just kidding sometimes, Professor. I wish you a good,
restful night.
Until we tangle again,
With best regards,
Inder
There is an innocuous booby-trap in this reply. Anyone
spot it? Let's see if You-Know-Who falls for it.
-------
∂14-Jul-88 0800 JMC
novak
∂14-Jul-88 0837 GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU [Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Ketonen to 40%]
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 08:36:52 PDT
Date: Thu 14 Jul 88 08:36:25-PDT
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>: Ketonen to 40%]
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: : ;
Message-ID: <12414261732.19.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Professor McCarthy:
←
---------------
Mail-From: GILBERTSON created at 13-Jul-88 15:01:55
Date: Wed 13 Jul 88 15:01:55-PDT
From: Edith Gilbertson <GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Ketonen to 40%
To: MPS@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: Gilbertson@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12414069767.33.GILBERTSON@Score.Stanford.EDU>
C. Talcott has sent a mssg that Jussi Ketonen would like to increase
his time to 40% from 20%, and he's being paid out of 2-DMA489.
Would you ask Prof. McCarthy to give his approval for the funding
and then I'll go ahead with the paperwork. (McCarthy does not have
any email listed).
Thanks,
-Edith
-------
-------
∂14-Jul-88 0837 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU FormFeed to meet today
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 08:36:56 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09974; Thu, 14 Jul 88 08:35:16 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 08:35:16 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807141535.AA09974@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: FormFeed to meet today
Let's see. We have to vacate the Rockwell room at 1, so the meeting
today will indeed by only an hour. DE2 is probably off flying somewhere,
so the agenda is empty -- who has stuff to talk about?
See you at noon ...
Matt
∂14-Jul-88 0900 JMC
spicer
∂14-Jul-88 1011 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU liberals had better run for the foothills...
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 10:11:24 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 14 Jul 88 10:10:07 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 10:10:07 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: liberals had better run for the foothills...
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Ed Meese just announced that he will be Visiting Fellow at Hoover.
-=paulf
∂14-Jul-88 1136 JK EDI conference
No academic rates. Cost $795, or $595 if we subscribe to EDI newsletter
(which we should, in case Stanford libraries don't). This subscription
will cost $225.
Re Stanford business school: Konsynski says to try folks in production
or logistics. He does not know any names, Harvard grabbed the last one
he knew anything about. He will be sending me a list of readings next
week.
∂14-Jul-88 1300 JMC
spicer
∂14-Jul-88 1432 CLT
i got milk for you
∂14-Jul-88 1540 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Jul 88 15:40:19 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 14 Jul 88 15:39:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 88 15:39:01 PDT
From: Dwayne Virnau <dragon@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <cCZtN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc: su-etc@score.Stanford.EDU
In article <cCZtN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>When I attacked Stanford's treatment of the candlelight
>protestors, I was expecting some defenders. Now I
>conjecture that there aren't any. Even the most liberal
>are disturbed by Stanford's behavior. However, people
>may be too afraid of being charged with racism to react.
>Anyway one would have to look up too much in old Daily's.
I did not read your original posting complaining of the way "Stanford"
reacted to this situation, as I tend to make liberal use of the k
command when reading this newsgroup. And I certainly don't want to get
into any flame wars about this or any other subject.
But if silence implies tacit agreement with the reaction to the candlelight
protest at Cedro, then I feel compelled to reply.
I was particularly annoyed by the Daily during this thing, and frustrated
once again by the national media. This stunt was pulled by individuals.
A stunt pulled by individuals does not represent a conspiracy. I thought
the reporting surrounding all this was awful. Just look at the Dailies
from that week. Pay special attention to each day's corrections for the
previous day's mistakes. One of my favorites (not a direct quote):
yesterday's story quoted RA Jeff Sloane as stating that sophomore X
printed up T-shirts saying "Aryan by the grace of God." X did not
make such a shirt, and Sloane did not say that he had. The Daily
regrets the error.
Now that's professional journalism.
Stanford may or may not foster an atmosphere that encourages individuals
to be insensitive to others. I am not convinced of that but I am willing
to discuss it. Questioning whether such an atmosphere exists can lead
to healthy debate. But I can't agree that healthy debate resulted from
any of this.
Dwayne...
∂14-Jul-88 1648 JK EDI
I talked to Ursula; she will let me know tomorrow.
∂14-Jul-88 1656 JK
Re: MAD
Jeff Ullman's NAIL project is the exact academic counterpart of DECLARE;
I have talked to him about MAD and mentioned his name to Nafeh.
In case I cease to have any dealings with MAD, you probably should try to
get him involved. Assuming, of course, that MAD decides DECLARE is viable.
∂15-Jul-88 0724 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA Comments on Free Will in "Some Philosphical Problems [vis-a-vis] AI"
Received: from mitre-bedford.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jul 88 07:24:28 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 10:24:30 EDT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Kort)
Full-Name: Kort
Message-Id: <8807151424.AA08103@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Comments on Free Will in "Some Philosphical Problems [vis-a-vis] AI"
Prof. McCarthy,
Thank you for sending me your paper, "Some Philosophical Problems from
the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence."
I read your paper with great interest, especially regarding your
treatment of the Free Will issue, and the related notion of "can".
I think the Free Will problem is not especially interesting for
the case of a deterministic automaton. I like to think of Free
Will as "the capacity to make and enact choices consistent with
one's knowledge and values." For a goal-seeking system, my verbal
definition seems consistent with your formalization, "can(p,pi,s),
with the proviso that the goal state, pi, is not dictated to the
automaton, p. In other words, the problem boils down to the question,
who or what conceived the goal state, pi, and how was it conceived?
To my mind, things become more interesting when we imbue the automaton
with non-deterministic choice mechanisms. I am thinking of the use
of random selection among a set of equal-valued alternatives. By
this means, an automaton can experimentally discover the outcome
of hypothetical courses of action, and thereby expand its knowledge
of the consequences. Such an automaton is able to "do science".
(Of course, as the knowledge base grows, the value system has to
evolve with it, so that the more favorable outcomes can be recalled.
Otherwise, the automaton is doomed to repeat its mistakes.)
My bottom line is that an automaton who is able to learn from experience,
evolve it's corresponding collection of preferences, and make arbitrary
(random) choices when its value system is tied will exhibit behavior
indistingushable from a sentient being with free will.
Interestingly enough, as the automaton grows in knowledge (awareness of
choices and their likely outcomes) and wisdom (awareness of the benefit
of possible outcomes), it will find its choices increasingly constrained
to those yielding the optimal goal state.
--Barry Kort
∂15-Jul-88 0900 JMC
spicer
∂15-Jul-88 1048 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jul 88 10:48:23 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 15 Jul 88 10:47:06 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 10:47:06 PDT
From: Dwayne Virnau <dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
>Date: 14 Jul 88 1627 PDT
>From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
>
>[In reply to message sent Thu, 14 Jul 88 15:39:01 PDT.]
>
>Ah, now I think I understand. Almost all published criticism of Stanford
>has been from the opposite point of view - from the point of view that
>Stanford has been insufficiently oppressive. Perhaps you took me as
>expressing that point of view.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your last messages. It is *not* my
contention that Stanford did not react strongly enough to this incident.
The protesters rights were violated, both their first amendment rights
and their rights to privacy. Most of this violation occurred at the
hands of the media, but I did not see any member of the Stanford
administration trying to minimize this circus or protect the students
they are allegedly here to serve.
These students have every right to protest the way a friend of theirs was
treated, because that friend was treated wrongly. Perhaps a point had
been reached where the one student in question could not remain in student
housing, but if that is so it is an example of poor management. Res Ed's
stated goal is to incorporate diverse people and diverse ideas into a
common environment. By kicking this kid out of the house they are only
admitting failure.
It seems to me that the students protesting this action were in many ways
naive. They thought by wearing masks they were disassociating themselves
from their fraternity. Other people thought they were trying to associate
themselves with the KKK. Pointing out to these protesters and the rest of
campus that people might have this negative reaction is part of the
"healthy debate" I was talking about.
If these students were to choose to continue their form of protest after
being informed that others were offended by it, they still have a 1st
amendment right to do so. My guess is they would not, but that issue
was lost in all the commotion. Instead of being an educational experience
for the students involved and the rest of campus this turned into an
embarrassing smear campaign. And for that residential "education" should
be ashamed of themselves.
Dwayne...
∂15-Jul-88 1048 VAL
I misplaced my copy of your map coloring report. Where can I find another copy?
∂15-Jul-88 1115 VAL re: reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 15-Jul-88 11:06-PT.]
Thank you.
∂15-Jul-88 1134 dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jul 88 11:33:48 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 15 Jul 88 11:32:30 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 11:32:30 PDT
From: Dwayne Virnau <dragon@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu, dragon@jessica.stanford.edu
Your memory of these events parallels mine exactly. Stanford did not
recognize their right to protest and played along all too well with the
ridiculous notion that they were associated with the KKK (although I
think that idea initially came from the press). While I don't have
direct evidence that someone from the administration bullied these
protesters, it is certainly evident that no one from the administration
tried to protect them from other bullying. The kindest thing you could
call this is a failure of the system.
Isn't that what I said in my previous message?
In any case, it doesn't seem to me that you and I need to clarify minor
points in what we say. We seem to agree that these students were treated
unfairly, and very few people are concerned about the protesters' rights.
Dwayne...
∂15-Jul-88 1252 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Issues Take 2
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Jul 88 12:52:07 PDT
Date: Fri 15 Jul 88 15:18:14-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Issues Take 2
To: duane.adams@c.cs.cmu.edu, dongarra@anl-mcs.arpa,
gannon%rdvax.dec@decwrl.dec.com, gossard@cadlab2.mit.edu,
hearn@rand-unix.arpa, jlh@sierra.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
mchenry%guvax.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu, ouster@ginger.berkeley.edu,
ralston@mcc.com, thornj@max.acs.washington.edu, CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa,
troywil@ibm.com
cc: goodman@mis.arizona.edu, knemeyer@A.ISI.EDU
Message-ID: <12414564259.44.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
What follows is a pass at issues based on the discussion at the meeting for
your review and comment. It is not complete or edited--it needs whatever
input you can provide. Following it is also a first cut at an intro, too.
=========
issue2.doc
ISSUES
The central question faced by the committee was, How is computer
technology changing, and how do those changes affect the United States'
ability to control computer technology exports? This section identifies
the key issues that emerged from the committee's efforts to answer that
question.
Four component questions capture the problem:
o What are recent trends in computer science and technology; how is
computer technology evolving?
o What is the global impact of computer science and technology; how is
it evolving in different countries?
o What is the intrinsic controllability of computer science and
technology, in particular for those elements that are valued and
desired by the East Bloc?
o What is the impact [on the computerssociated industries]
of attempts to control exports of computer science and technology?
These questions suggest the following analytical framework:
Technology Controllability
____________________________________________
| Trends/pace | |
| Definitions | |
Science | Standards | |
| Transfer/X-Fert | |
_________________________________________________
| | |
| | |
Political/Economic | | |
| | |
_________________________________________________
Each cell of the above matrix represents a set of key issues, as outlined
below. The committee focused on the issues presented in the technology
column, but those issue in turn drive the issues presented in the
controllability column.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONTROLLABILITY
Trends/pace. The central science and technology issue is the pace of
___________
technological change in this field. Overall, the flow from new computer
science to technological innovation is relatively fast. That pace
reflects a combination of numerous and frequent incremental changes (e.g.,
further miniaturization of circuitry) and occasional breakthroughs. How
can control programs keep abreast of technologies characterized by rapid
innovation? What are the preconditions for innovation? Where and by
whom is innovation most likely to occur?
Definitions. The rapid pace of technological change poses problems for
___________
the export control process. Control programs must identify and define
what is and isn't subject to controls. While administration and
enforcement would benefit from precise definitions, how can computer
technologies be defined with sufficient flexibility to reflect changes in
technical qualities and availability? How can current technologies be
distinguished from emerging technologies for purposes of control?
Standards. Technical standards facilitate the spread of computer (and
_________
other) technology, although they can also slow movement toward new--but
nonconforming--technologies. How do the presence or absence of standards
affect the rate, direction, and location of computer technology change
among the various elements? How does the standard-setting process,
typically international and characterized by openness (standards must be
published to be effective), also affect those variables? How does
standardization affect market development? How does standardization
affect controllability of computer technology?
Interdependencies. Pieces of computer systems tend to be interrelated.
_________________
Some elements are more important than others, in terms of the capability
they provide to the user and, therefore, their impact on/relevance to
national security (?). What are the best leverage points to protect
undesirable migration of technology? How do computer technology
interdependencies affect market structure and foreign availability of
computer technology? Have the breadth and complexity of computer
technology advanced so much as to militate against a broad-based control
system?[under new regime, best place to subsume cross-fert]
TECHNOLOGY, POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, AND CONTROLLABILITY
Globalization. Computer technology today draws heavily on theory and
_____________
products that originated in the United States, but it has become
increasingly global. Foreign availability of computer technology, a key
factor shaping control effort, is growing. Where do innovations tend to
occur, and how is that geographic incidence changing? What does it mean
to be a world leader in computer technology, and how sustainable is
leadership? How broadly distributed is computer technology production,
and where are major centers of production? How has globalization shaped
concerns about U.S. computer competitiveness, and what do those concerns
imply for controls? In view of globalization, what new foreign relations
challenges emerge that impinge on control efforts?
Commoditization. A growing number of computer technologies have become
_______________
widely available and cheap, and more and more will fall into that
category. These technologies are commonly called commodities, to
underscore how easy they are to obtain. Which computer technologies can
be considered commodities? How is the pool of commodity technology
changing, and at what rate? To what extent do computer technologies
regarded as commodities tend to be subject to standardization, de facto or
otherwise? How does commoditization affect market development and the
health of the U.S. computer sector? What does commoditization imply for
controllabcivilian and military use?
What is the linkage between civilian and military use of computer
technology and on what does it depend? What are the prerequisites for
effective use of computer technology, and to what degree do they exist in
CMEA countries? What does absorbability imply for controls?
Military significance. Computers have made and will continue to make
_____________________
major contributions to national security, sometimes through
commercially-available technology and often through special systems
specific to military applications. How easily can the military
criticality of computer technology be identified? How much do computer
technologies vary in their relevance to national security, esp. from the
perspective of military criticality? How close are military and civilian
functionality for computer technologies? How easily can civilian
applications be converted to military ones? How does purely civilian
development and use of computer technology affect military capabilities?
What is the impact of a separate system of military technology on the
overall development of computer technology and the U.S. computer industry?
In the course of this report the committee will address most of the above
issues. Subsumed in much of the discussion is concern about the
competitiveness of the U.S. computer sector and the possibility that some
approaches to export control are more harmful to competitiveness than
others. This was a strong concern within the committee, and it is one
that calls for further, more focused study.
issue2.doc
ISSUES
The central question faced by the committee was, How is computer
technology changing, and how do those changes affect the United States'
ability to control computer technology exports? This section identifies
the key issues that emerged from the committee's efforts to answer that
question.
Four component questions capture the problem:
o What are recent trends in computer science and technology; how is
computer technology evolving?
o What is the global impact of computer science and technology; how is
it evolving in different countries?
o What is the intrinsic controllability of computer science and
technology, in particular for those elements that are valued and
desired by the East Bloc?
o What is the impact [on the computer field and associated industries]
of attempts to control exports of computer science and technology?
These questions suggest the following analytical framework:
Technology Controllability
__________________________________________________
| Trends/pace | |
| Definitions | |
Science | Standards | |
| Transfer/X-Fert | |
_________________________________________________
| | |
| | |
Political/Economic | | |
| | |
_________________________________________________
Each cell of the above matrix represents a set of key issues, as outlined
below. The committee focused on the issues presented in the technology
column, but those issue in turn drive the issues presented in the
controllability column.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND CONTROLLABILITY
Trends/pace. The central science and technology issue is the pace of
___________
technological change in this field. Overall, the flow from new computer
science to technological innovation is relatively fast. That pace
reflects a combination of numerous and frequent incremental changes (e.g.,
further miniaturization of circuitry) and occasional breakthroughs. How
can control programs keep abreast of technologies characterized by rapid
innovation? What are the preconditions for innovation? Where and by
whom is innovation most likely to occur?
Definitions. The rapid pace of technological change poses problems for
___________
the export control process. Control programs must identify and define
what is and isn't subject to controls. While administration and
enforcement would benefit from precise definitions, how can computer
technologies be defined with sufficient flexibility to reflect changes in
technical qualities and availability? How can current technologies be
distinguished from emerging technologies for purposes of control?
Standards. Technical standards facilitate the spread of computer (and
_________
other) technology, although they can also slow movement toward new--but
nonconforming--technologies. How do the presence or absence of standards
affect the rate, direction, and location of computer technology change
among the various elements? How does the standard-setting process,
typically international and characterized by openness (standards must be
published to be effective), also affect those variables? How does
standardization affect market development? How does standardization
affect controllability of computer technology?
Interdependencies. Pieces of computer systems tend to be interrelated.
_________________
Some elements are more important than others, in terms of the capability
they provide to the user and, therefore, their impact on/relevance to
national security (?). What are the best leverage points to protect
undesirable migration of technology? How do computer technology
interdependencies affect market structure and foreign availability of
computer technology? Have the breadth and complexity of computer
technology advanced so much as to militate against a broad-based control
system?[under new regime, best place to subsume cross-fert]
TECHNOLOGY, POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, AND CONTROLLABILITY
Globalization. Computer technology today draws heavily on theory and
_____________
products that originated in the United States, but it has become
increasingly global. Foreign availability of computer technology, a key
factor shaping control effort, is growing. Where do innovations tend to
occur, and how is that geographic incidence changing? What does it mean
to be a world leader in computer technology, and how sustainable is
leadership? How broadly distributed is computer technology production,
and where are major centers of production? How has globalization shaped
concerns about U.S. computer competitiveness, and what do those concerns
imply for controls? In view of globalization, what new foreign relations
challenges emerge that impinge on control efforts?
Commoditization. A growing number of computer technologies have become
_______________
widely available and cheap, and more and more will fall into that
category. These technologies are commonly called commodities, to
underscore how easy they are to obtain. Which computer technolofyes can
be considered commodities? How is the pool of commodity technology
changing, and at what rate? To what extent do computer technologies
regarded as commodities tend to be subject to standardization, de facto or
otherwise? How does commoditization affect market development and the
health of the U.S. computer sector? What does commoditization imply for
controllability?
Absorbability. The value of computer technology depends on how easily and
_____________
how well it can be used. How well and how quickly has computer technology
been absorbed into East Bloc economies for civilian and military use?
What is the linkage between civilian and military use of computer
technology and on what does it depend? What are the prerequisites for
effective use of computer technology, and to what degree do they exist in
CMEA countries? What does absorbability imply for controls?
Military significance. Computers have made and will continue to make
_____________________
major contributions to national security, sometimes through
commercially-available technology and often through special systems
specific to military applications. How easily can the military
criticality of computer technology be identified? How much do computer
technologies vary in their relevance to national security, esp. from the
perspective of military criticality? How close are military and civilian
functionality for computer technologies? How easily can civilian
applications be converted to military ones? How does purely civilian
development and use of computer technology affect military capabilities?
What is the impact of a separate system of military technology on the
overall development of computer technology and the U.S. computer industry?
In the course of this report the committee will address most of the above
issues. Subsumed in much of the discussion is concern about the
competitiveness of the U.S. computer sector and the possibility that some
approaches to export control are more harmful to competitiveness than
others. This was a strong concern within the committee, and it is one
that calls for further, more focused study.
introstt.doc
OVERVIEW
Legal controls on what can be exported to certain countries, particularly
those in the East Bloc, have been put into place by the United States and
its Western allies as a measure to protect national security.
of controls is built on the premise that Western technology conveys
military advantage against its adversaries, particularly those in the East
Bloc, which tends to have large armed forces and arsenals of weapons.
Witholding technology can also affect national security indirectly by
limiting economic development. Export controls do not guarantee that
Western technology will not pass to the East Bloc, since some technology
can be (and is) transferred through illicit channels. But at a minimum
they are a potent means of slowing the pace and raising the cost of
technology transfer from West to East.
Computer technologies are prominent on the list of controlled
technologies. Some 60 percent of [COCOM cases] involve the export of
computer technologies. These technologies are highly sought-after by the
East Bloc. They are offering more and more capability at relatively low
costs. As is apparent in the West, computers are becoming increasingly
pervasive, conveying eomic as well as military benefits. The
intertwined development of computer technologies and their markets poses a
dilemma for policy makers: how can transfer of these technologies be
controlled for national security purposes with minimal harm to innovation
and commercial development in this field? The problem is complex, but
important insights can be gained from an examination of the recent and
expected near-term evolution of computer science and technology.
CHARTER AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE[nec. boilerplate +]
The Committee to Study International Developments in Computer Science and
Technology was established under the auspices of the National Research
Council's Computer Science and Technology Board (CSTB) to evaluate trends
in the development and international diffusion of computer technology and
their ramifications for export control policy. Through CSTB, the
committee was asked by the Department of State to assess [from the
official proposal]:
o computer science and technology trends in Western nations
o the status of and trends in East Bloc computer capabilities
Committee members were selected for expertise in a variety of aspects of
computer science and technology, familiarity with international trends in
the field, and insight into the East Bloc environment.
The committee began its deliberations with an initial meeting on December
3 and 4, 1987. It met in 1988 on March 24 and 25 and on July 6 and 7.
The full committee and committee representatives were briefed by the
intelligence community and the Department of State and sought information
from the Departments of Commerce and Defense. However, in view of the
limited time and resources available to it, the committee relied primarily
on its own expertise and analyses. The committee's findings, conclusions,
and analytical framework are presented in this report.
ORGANIZATION AND FOCUS[caveat city]
The committee addressed selected elements of computer science and
technology and trends in selected countries. While a broad international
perspective was attempted, most/much of the discussion centers on trends
in the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Conditions in several countries in the Far
East, W. Europe, and the E. Bloc are identified, especially for
technologies where those countries are particularly strong. Even with
more resources, the committee could not have overcome the fact that
comprehensive, reliable data covering all aspects of computer science and
technology in all countries does not exist. Nevertheless, the committee
extended its inquiry beyond the requested [per wording of proposal!] focus
on advanced Western nations and the East Bloc to address perceived
developments among newly-industrializing countries; in this field, a
simple East-West dichotomy does not adequately capture world dynamics.
The committee conducted a primarily technical evaluation, describing
trends in the development of computer science and technology. Technology
elements discussed in detail include... Building on its technical
evaluation, the committee identified a number of issues for consideration
in updating export controls for computer technologies. It drew
conclusions about the intrinsic controllability of computer technologies
and the interplay between controls, technology development, and prospects
for the U.S. computer industry.
The committee did not study militarily critical applications, but its
assessment illuminated the relative military importance of different
computer technologies. It also did not conduct a comprehensive inquiry
into technology transfer mechanisms and policy issues.
[more TBD. sorry about repeat above--first version got garbeled]
-------
∂16-Jul-88 0813 Mailer Re: protest
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 08:13:51 PDT
Date: Sat 16 Jul 88 08:11:52-PDT
From: Harinder Singh <H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: protest
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <qDPHN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12414781551.161.H.HARRY@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
I read a report in Campus Report about the matter.
If I remember right, it was written by a lady with some sort
of `Dean' (or Asst/Assoc Dean) title and presented to the
faculty senate; I myself was either away when it happened
or just passing through so I don't have a clear recollection
of what the facts are.
However I remember thinking, as I read the report,
that it seemed terribly biased in its choice of loaded
terms, description(s) and interpretations. Seemed like
a pretty shoddy piece of work to me. If such is the case,
it has no place in the University's Judicial machinery
and must be challenged.
I would be interested in attending a meeting to
learn more about the facts and consider possible followup
action. (Given the number and diversity of similar projects
I've already committed time for, I might only be able to
provide moral support and a signature for this one.)
If nothing else the exercise could provide an
opportunity to clarify the distinctions between acceptable
and un-acceptable forms of free speech/right to assemble
actions within (a) the law and (b) the University's operation;
neither (a) nor (b) is automatically right as it exists and
each needs frequent scrutiny. Maybe we could get the Univ.
Counsel, some Law School Profs./students and the Ombudsperson
to address a forum and analyze this case or, more likely, analyze
a fictitious case incorporating the key elements as a case study.
The report, I remember, _felt_ heavy-handed to me.
Does anyone else remember it or have a copy handy to quote
from?
Inder
-------
∂16-Jul-88 0941 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: Solid citizens drive me nuts
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 09:41:44 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 16 Jul 88 09:40:25 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 09:40:25 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Solid citizens drive me nuts
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Yes, but imagine the size of the permeable membrane necessary to catch
a critical mass! :-)
-=paulf
∂16-Jul-88 0943 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: protest
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 09:43:01 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 16 Jul 88 09:41:43 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 09:41:43 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: protest
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <qDPHN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Cc:
Count me in.
-=paulf
∂16-Jul-88 1124 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU freedom of speech
Received: from crystals (crystals.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 11:24:24 PDT
Received: by crystals ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 11:23:19 pdt
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 11:23:19 pdt
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807161823.AA14153@crystals>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: freedom of speech
I would be willing to attend a meeting and perhaps take some action.
However, I'm not sure how much I can do as I will be in Japan Fall and
Winter quarters.
Bill
∂16-Jul-88 1540 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from crystals (crystals.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 15:40:13 PDT
Received: by crystals ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 15:39:02 pdt
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 15:39:02 pdt
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807162239.AA14338@crystals>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
I'm glad you got some other responses. Let me know what you have in mind.
I agree that it is important for this sort of thing not to be associated
with one part of the political spectrum, lest there be room for ad hominem
attacks that allow the issue to be skirted.
Bill
∂16-Jul-88 1733 poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from crystals (crystals.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 17:33:18 PDT
Received: by crystals ; Sat, 16 Jul 88 17:32:14 pdt
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 17:32:14 pdt
From: William J. Poser <poser@crystals.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807170032.AA14541@crystals>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re:Stanford and the candlelight protest
Okay.
∂16-Jul-88 2042 rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU a DARPA report
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 20:42:26 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06310; Sat, 16 Jul 88 20:42:10 PDT
Message-Id: <8807170342.AA06310@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: clt@sail
Cc: jmc@sail, rpg@sail, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: a DARPA report
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88 20:42:08 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
No, I haven't got a copy of the Scherlis message, but here is a
proposed report. Since They want it sent this Sunday the 17th, rapid
comments would be appreciated (in lieu of comments I will send this as
is). In order for me to receive any such relevant messages from
Scherlis and his ilk in the future, perhaps we could make the PI
mailbox a mailing list (consisting of, shell we say, myself and
carolyn for the time being), something like qlisp-pi@go4.
Anyhow, here goes:
Institution:
Stanford University, Department of Computer Science
Project Title:
Qlisp for Parallel Processors
Principal Investigators:
John McCarthy - official PI
Carolyn Talcott (PI mailbox)
Igor Rivin
Dick Gabriel (Lucid)
Ron Goldman (Lucid)
Phone No.:
415-723-0936 (Talcott)
Project PI Net Address:
clt@sail.stanford.edu
Technical Information
a. FY88 accomplishments.
1. QLISP Implementation:
a) Special variables have been implemented using deep binding.
b) QLAMBDA construct (the NIL and T versions) has been
implemented.
c) A preliminary implementation of futures has been made.
d) Alternative scheduling algorithms have been explored
2. QLISP application
a) A modular polynomial greatest common divisor algorithm has been
implemented.
b) Most of the suitable Gabriel benchmarks have been reimplemented
in QLISP
c) A computer algebra system capable of computing indefinite
integrals using the Risch algorithm has been partially
implemented.
3. Miscellaneous
A continuation based simulator for QLISP has been implemented.
b. FY89 projects
1. QLISP implementation
a) The implementation of futures will be completed, and consequently
The 'EAGER forms of QLET and QLAMBDA will be implemented
b) Non-local exits via CATCH and THROW will be implemented.
c) Ports to other hardware under Mach will be explored.
d) Performance improvements will be made.
2. QLISP applications
a) The implementation of a computer algebra system will be completed
and an attempt will be made to extract all possible parallelism
out of such a system in the QLISP paradigm.
b) Other domains will be explored, such as theorem-proving and
AI search problems.
3. Miscellaneous
A collaboration with other groups (both inside and outside the
DARPA community) will be started, in order to compare experiences,
develop a benchmark suite for parallel Lisps and extract the common
features of the several parallel Lisps presently under development
in order to perhaps agree on a parallel Lisp "kernel".
c. Major FY88 publications:
Arkady Rabinov
Programming in QLISP -- Case Study (Stanford CSD tech report)
Joseph Weening
A Parallel Lisp Simulator (Stanford CSD tech report)
R. Gabriel and R. Goldman
Preliminary Results with the Initial Implementation of Qlisp
(1988 Lisp and Functional Programming Conference)
∂16-Jul-88 2224 siegman@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Candles
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Jul 88 22:24:50 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 16 Jul 88 22:26:02 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1988 22:26:01 PDT
From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <siegman@sierra>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Candles
I have written a letter to Diana Conklin saying that (a) the candlelight
protestors' conduct was absolutely within the bounds of First Amendment
protect free speech; (b) recognizing and protecting that freedom of
expression ought to be particularly important on a university campus;
(c) therefore her report ought to have made points (a) and (b)
clearly and specifically, whatever else it said; and (d) if she doesn't
recognize this, we're in trouble. I also think the KKK reaction was
greatly overblown (though perhaps the students in the dorm where the vigil
took place may have been genuinely frightened or disturbed) (the minority
students therein, that is); and the interpretive section of Diana's report
was full of loaded language. But, I think these latter points are of
much les significance; and I think the university administration should
express its disapproval of racist statements and opinions, even while
defending their right to be voiced.
I might be willing to sign a carefully crafted statement related in some
way to the above; but I'm not interested in going further, and will not
have time this summer to get involved in helping prepare such a
statement. (I've got another battle to spend my combative energies on,
having to do with the road in front of my house.)
∂17-Jul-88 0912 RPG Report
To: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I've modified the report somewhat and included it here. If you set up
a PI mailbox, please include me.
Institution:
Stanford University, Department of Computer Science
Project Title:
Qlisp for Parallel Processors
Principal Investigators:
John McCarthy - official PI
Carolyn Talcott (PI mailbox)
Igor Rivin
Dick Gabriel (Lucid)
Ron Goldman (Lucid)
Phone No.:
415-723-0936 (Talcott)
Project PI Net Address:
clt@sail.stanford.edu
Technical Information
a. FY88 accomplishments.
1. QLISP Implementation:
a) Special variables have been implemented using deep binding.
b) QLAMBDA construct (the NIL and T versions) has been
implemented.
c) A preliminary implementation of futures has been made.
d) Alternative scheduling algorithms have been explored
2. QLISP application
a) A modular polynomial greatest common divisor algorithm has been
implemented.
b) Most of the suitable Gabriel benchmarks have been reimplemented
in QLISP
c) A computer algebra system capable of computing indefinite
integrals using the Risch algorithm has been partially
implemented.
3. Miscellaneous
A continuation based simulator for QLISP has been implemented.
b. FY89 projects
1. QLISP implementation
a) The implementation of futures will be completed, and consequently
The 'EAGER forms of QLET and QLAMBDA will be implemented
b) Non-local exits via CATCH and THROW will be implemented.
c) Ports to other hardware under Mach will be explored.
d) Performance improvements will be made.
2. QLISP applications
a) The implementation of a computer algebra system will be completed
and an attempt will be made to extract all possible parallelism
out of such a system in the QLISP paradigm.
b) Other domains will be explored, such as theorem-proving and
AI search problems.
3. Miscellaneous
A collaboration with other groups (both inside and outside the
DARPA community) will be started, in order to compare experiences,
develop a benchmark suite for parallel Lisps and extract the common
features of the several parallel Lisps presently under development
in order to perhaps agree on a parallel Lisp "kernel".
New parallel constructs will be explored. Among these are
partially, multiply invoked functions, heavyweight futures, and
process environments.
c. Major FY88 publications:
Arkady Rabinov
Programming in QLISP -- Case Study (Stanford CSD tech report)
Joseph Weening
A Parallel Lisp Simulator (Stanford CSD tech report)
R. Gabriel and R. Goldman
Preliminary Results with the Initial Implementation of Qlisp
(1988 Lisp and Functional Programming Conference)
R. Gabriel and R. Goldman
Qlisp: Experience and New Directions
(1988 Parallel Programming Experience, Applications, Languages,
and Systems)
∂17-Jul-88 1256 VAL
Do you have a copy of the AP release about your prize, or a newspaper clipping?
I'd like to enclose something like this with the biographical info I'm sending
to Ablex.
∂17-Jul-88 1307 VAL
Ablex asks: "Does your book have application as a textbook? Required or
supplementary?" What will we tell them?
∂17-Jul-88 1342 VAL re: reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Jul-88 13:28-PT.]
In addition, I'd like to have some information about the prize itself. I
remember, the prize was described nicely in the AP release, but it was more
than 2 weeks ago, and I can't get it from NEWS.
∂17-Jul-88 2102 @ira.uka.de:siekmann@uklirb.uucp Re: Arkady Rabinov
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Jul 88 21:02:46 PDT
Received: from germany.csnet by RELAY.CS.NET id aa27049; 18 Jul 88 0:03 EDT
Received: from uklirb by iraun1.ira.uka.de id aa17137; 17 Jul 88 19:22 MET DST
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 88 13:10:14 MET DST
From: Joerg Siekmann <siekmann@uklirb.uucp>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Arkady Rabinov
Hi John,thank you for the hint,shall contact him by e.mail
Joerg Siekmann
∂18-Jul-88 0650 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 06:50:39 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 308246; Mon 18-Jul-88 09:49:02 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 66878; Mon 18-Jul-88 06:49:37 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 06:48 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "ilan@score.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880706061339.3.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880718134856.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
bcc: "rcs@tis-w.arpa"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 06:42 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
From Fourier dragon hacking, I can show that . . .
(Following Uncle Shelby), define
∞
/===\
! ! 2 a k + b
∞ 1 - ! ! ( 1 + z SIN (------- π))
==== ! ! n
\ n = 1 3
f(a,b,z) := > ----------------------------------- .
/ a k + b
====
k = -∞
Before, a was 1 and b was phi. I knew that f(1,b,z) converged to 0 for z
in some disk and b rational, but it seems to converge to 0 for all
complex b and z.
I have now shown that f(2,b,z) is also 0 for the same b and z, and empirically,
f(a,b,z) = 0 for -2 ≤ a ≤ 2 and ∀ b,z. At this point you might wonder if f
ever gets off the dime. Yes, the very fact that f(1,b,z) = 0 directly
implies that f(3,b,z) = - πz (sin 2bπ/3)/6. And f blows sky high for complex a.
The value of f(5,b,z) looks like it will come out particularly neat. For
integer a, the closed form of f(a,b,z) depends on the expansion of 1/a in base 3.
Conceivably, f(a,b,z) = f(trunc(a),b,z).
∂18-Jul-88 0738 bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA re: Comments on Free Will i
Received: from mitre-bedford.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 07:38:01 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 10:37:44 EDT
From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Kort)
Full-Name: Kort
Message-Id: <8807181437.AA18115@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Comments on Free Will i
>Our intuitions are entirely opposite. In my opinion, the decisive case
>is when the automaton is deterministic.
>
>Here's an argument in support of the intuition.
>
>1. When we design programs for robots, we want them to consider
>alternative subgoals. We want it to decide that some of them
>are unfeasible, e.g. "I don't have enough money to charter an
>airplane to go there". These are what it decides it can't do.
>Some of the subgoals are feasible, i.e. these are what it
>decides it can do. It selects among these according to whatever
>criteria we give it.
How does the automaton discover the possible courses of action
open to it? (I am assuming that it is impractical to preprogram
the automaton with all possible alternatives.)
>2. When we program it to decide what others can and cannot do,
>the same criteria apply. It needn't consider whether the other
>person or robot has nondeterministic mechanisms.
I agree that if we ask the automaton, "Can agent X do Y?" we want
the automaton to model the likelihood of agent X choosing alternative
Y. But suppose agent X is creative, in that it occasionally devises
previously unheard of solutions. In that case, how can our automaton
anticipate agent X's behavior?
>3. We don't know what role randomness or other indeterminacy
>plays in our own or other people's decision making, and we
>rarely think about it in concrete cases. Decision by an
>unknown complex mechanism, or even by a known mechanism
>using unknown to us considerations is not readily distinguished
>from randomness.
I agree.
>4. At the intuitive level, the concept of free will is treated like the
>above notion of "can". However, complications in philosophical thinking
>set in as soon as one imagines studying a decision in more detail. Namely,
>the number of alternatives that regarded as possible seems to go down - in
>principle if not with our actual ability to observe and analyze. We
>imagine it to go down to one, and then free will seems to disappear.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the number of alternatives
regarded as >desirable< goes down, even as the number of imaginable/possible
alternatives goes up. A key factor is the time horizon beyond which
one is unable to predict or anticipate the consequences of an alternative.
>5. I have an answer to that. First, imagine that someone considers an
>apparently attractive alternative for a while, but finally thinks of a
>consideration that leads him to find it disastrous, and says, "Well, I guess
>I can't do that after all". Our linguistic intuitions permit two
>usages. One usage persists in saying, "He could do that, but he
>finds it disastrous". The other says, "He couldn't do it, because
>it would be disastrous". Both usages are useful and used.
It seems we have converged to equivalent conclusions on this point.
I note with interest the onset of moral considerations--the concern
for downstream harm.
>6. Can and free will are treatable as approximate theories as discussed
>in my paper "Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines".
I would be grateful for a pointer to (or a copy of) your paper.
Although we are a long way from creating conscious systems upon silicon
substrates, I am among those who believe the feat to be attainable. To
this end, I am increasingly fascinated by the process of creating
conscious systems upon carbon substrates.
--Barry Kort
∂18-Jul-88 0813 MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU contact with von Neumann and Wiener
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 08:13:04 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 11:15:50 EDT
From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: contact with von Neumann and Wiener
To: MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Jul 88 0111 PDT from John McCarthy <JMC at SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <414141.880718.MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Yes, I would say that neither von Neumann or Wierner was much of an
influence on me. I certainly discussed AI with Weiner, but he tended
to dislike heuristic thought and was stuck on the idea of solving
problems by finding a general scheme for developing things as power
series, etc., and finding ways to determine their coefficients. I was
much more influenced by the models of Rashevsly and the two
McCulloch-Pitts papers - on logic and on vision; indeed, so was
Weiner.
Same for von Neumann, pretty much. He did indeed support my topic.
He was mindly interested in my neural net learning machines, but
preferred to talk about the self-reproducing machine problem. I
appreciated his construction-tape idea but regarded the
template-copying solution as simpler, although shallower. The
firing-squad solution made it possible to copy a machine, and then
translate it to another part of the cellular array and then start it
going, without any tricky coding.) I don't remember any profound
discussions about AI with Shannon, beyond some Chess heuristics.
∂18-Jul-88 1024 WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU protest
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 10:24:18 PDT
Date: Mon 18 Jul 88 10:23:13-PDT
From: Walter R. Mann <WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: protest
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12415329752.19.WRMANN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
At this point I don't have enough information to decide whether
or not the treatement of the protesters was justified, but I am
interested in learning more. As long as this group starts with
a reasonably open mind (let us at most suspect, and not assume,
that an injustice has occurred), I would be happy to join in.
I would also like very much to read the report Harinder Singh
wrote of. Perhaps if a copy can be found, it should be
distributed as soon as possible to all parties.
Walter Mann
-------
∂18-Jul-88 1401 watson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: lyrics to "America" song?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 14:01:10 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09885; Mon, 18 Jul 88 14:00:50 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 14:00:50 PDT
From: Kennita L. Watson <watson@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807182100.AA09885@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: lyrics to "America" song?
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <1gDrHG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
In article <1gDrHG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> you write:
>[In reply to message from OPER.KOWTKO@score.stanford.edu sent Fri 15 Jul 88 12:29:58-PDT.]
>
>The version I learned in grade school had instead of "My heart belongs to thee"
>"God shed his grace on thee". Although an atheist, I object to updating
>traditional songs.
∂18-Jul-88 1504 watson@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: lyrics to "America" song?
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 15:04:24 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA13041; Mon, 18 Jul 88 15:04:06 PDT
Message-Id: <8807182204.AA13041@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: watson@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU, watson@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: lyrics to "America" song?
In-Reply-To: Your message of 18 Jul 88 14:03:00 -0700.
<oExFD@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 15:04:04 PDT
From: watson@polya.Stanford.EDU
Sorry -- I was trying to post the words to all three verses, and got
lost somewhere in the process. I don't work with rn much. I think I
got it posted now.
I hope your summer's going well. I'm working at Oracle these days
(I'm not getting an MSCS in Symbolic and Heuristic Programming so I
can be Quintus's documentation manager forever....).
Take care,
Kennita
∂18-Jul-88 1557 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 15:57:21 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 15:46:09 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <cDwd4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12415388541.44.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I would certainly join such a non-political protest.
-------
∂18-Jul-88 1615 BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Candlelight
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 16:14:56 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 16:10:48 PDT
From: Faye Boyle <BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Candlelight
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12415393028.69.BOYLE@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I will be out of town the rest of this week, however if there is any thing I
can do at a later date, letters or whatever, please let me know. I am assuming
that staff people are not excluded. I feel very strongly that an injustice
was done, unfortunately it was not an isolated situation. Thank you for the
opportunity to voice my objection.
Faye Boyle
-------
∂18-Jul-88 1655 Qlisp-mailer this week's Qlisp meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 16:55:33 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00803; Mon, 18 Jul 88 16:55:10 PDT
Message-Id: <8807182355.AA00803@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: this week's Qlisp meeting
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 16:55:07 PDT
From: rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Will be held Wednesday (the 20th) at 3:30pm in MJH352 (note unusual
time and place). Professor Ito will tell us about the current state of
Pi-Lisp, while we will describe the current state of Qlisp.
CU there
Igor
∂18-Jul-88 1724 VAL contexts
I'm leaving a few pages on your terminal. The file is contex.tex[1,val].
∂18-Jul-88 2055 Qlisp-mailer Effect of contention on speedup
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Jul 88 20:55:46 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01604; Mon, 18 Jul 88 20:55:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 20:55:26 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807190355.AA01604@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Effect of contention on speedup
One of the things we've discussed recently is how to take into account
the effect of contention for the free list of cons cells, and similar
resource contention, on the speedup of programs. The two basic
approaches to this are analytical and experimental.
Analytically, this is a problem in queueing theory with a single
server, constant service time, a finite customer population, and an
unknown request distribution. Standard techniques should be able to
solve this, and several of us are now busy learning the standard
techniques.
In the meantime, it is easy enough to run an experiment. Suppose N
processors each do 10000 units of non-consing work, and call the cons
function M times (chosen as a random subset of {1,...,10000}) during
this computation at a cost of 5 units each time. Since there is only
one free list, a processor that wants to cons while someone else has
the resource must wait. Here are the speedups we get as a function of
number of processors and time spent consing:
Time Number of Processors
Consing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
1000 1.00 1.99 2.97 3.92 4.87 5.78 6.67 7.50
2000 (1/6) 1.00 1.97 2.87 3.73 4.45 5.06 5.44 5.77
3000 1.00 1.93 2.76 3.43 3.90 4.16 4.29 4.31
4000 1.00 1.89 2.62 3.10 3.38 3.47 3.49 3.49
5000 (1/3) 1.00 1.85 2.47 2.84 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.00
6000 1.00 1.81 2.35 2.58 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.66
7000 1.00 1.77 2.23 2.39 2.41 2.42 2.42 2.43
8000 1.00 1.73 2.13 2.23 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
9000 1.00 1.70 2.03 2.10 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11
10000 (1/2) 1.00 1.66 1.94 1.99 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
The ratios next to some of the lines indicate the relation of consing
to total work, e.g., 1/3 = 5000/(5000+10000). The last line shows
that when the times for consing and non-consing work are equal, then
the speedup never goes above 2, which is what we'd expect given
Amdahl's law etc. So none of the above numbers are surprising, but it
is interesting to see where the curves begin to level off.
The question remains whether we can make use of this data. If we can
determine the amount of time that a program spends using serial
resources, then we will have an upper bound on the amount of
parallelism possible; a program that does not achieve this amount is
still a candidate for improvement. However, it is not immediately
obvious how to obtain this information.
∂19-Jul-88 1008 VAL Bibel's address after 30 September 1988
W. Bibel
Informatik
Technische Hochschule
Alexanderstr. 24
D-6100 Darmstadt
Germany (W)
+49-6151-16-2100 (Bibel's direct #)
+49-6151-16-1 (University switchboard #)
+49-6151-16-3406 (department's general secretary #)
+49-6151-16-5489 (Fax #)
∂19-Jul-88 1153 S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jul 88 11:52:58 PDT
Date: Tue 19 Jul 88 11:50:36-PDT
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <cDwd4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12415607802.161.S.SALUT@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Well, you could add my name to the list of willing signatories to your
protest against University 'leftist fascism', however I'm just a student
here, and I don't think my voice/name carries much weight. I thought
you were looking for other FACULTY to join you, and that's why I didn't
answer earlier.
Alex
-------
∂19-Jul-88 1302 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: miscataloging?
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jul 88 13:02:17 PDT
Date: Tue 19 Jul 88 13:01:37-PDT
From: Math/Computer Science Library <LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: miscataloging?
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <#D$M0@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12415620733.10.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John,
According to AACR2 rules (1979 instituted) if a book is edited the
main entry and also author cutter is the title, not the editor. Thus
Q335 Q47 indicates the title is the main entry and the letter after the
point corresponds to the title.
Rebecca Lasher
Math/CS Library
PS Glad you are back. I understand from the Physics Librarian, Henry
Lowood that you use PC Week in that library and I am wondering if you
are interested in the Math/CS Library subscribing?
-------
∂19-Jul-88 1615 haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: protest
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jul 88 16:15:05 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28637; Tue, 19 Jul 88 16:14:43 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 16:14:43 PDT
From: Ramsey Haddad <haddad@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807192314.AA28637@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: protest
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <qDPHN@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Add my name to your protest list.
Ramsey Haddad
∂20-Jul-88 0842 boesch@vax.darpa.mil URGENT!!!! Information Needed for Incremental Funding
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 88 08:41:51 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA10480; Wed, 20 Jul 88 11:33:35 EDT
Posted-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 11:20:53 EDT
Message-Id: <8807201520.AA02225@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02225; Wed, 20 Jul 88 11:20:57 EDT
To: dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: URGENT!!!! Information Needed for Incremental Funding
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 11:20:53 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
July is here and with it the annual DARPA short-fuze request for
data to support the Fall funding increments. We need the following
information by return email, not later than next Monday (25 July),
in order to keep things moving:
a. Two short paragraphs (250 words max): "FY88 Accomplishemnts",
and "FY89 Proposed Efforts". Please be concise, there is a premium
on clear statements of "the big picture", NOT on detail.
b. The following financial data, accurate as of June 30, 1988
(you may have made such a report recently, if so please be patient
and make it again):
(1) basic contract dollar amount
(2) dollar amounts and purposes of options
(3) total spending authority received to date
(4) total billed to date
(5) monthly expenditure rate (if not uniform, provide monthly
profile, July 88 thru Dec 89)
(6) any major non-salary expenses expected now thru Dec 89
(7) date next increment of funds is needed
(8) additional funding needed to carry effort thru Dec 89 or
end of contract, whichever is sooner
Please note that it is critical to your Fall funding increment for
this information to arrive at DARPA by 25 July.
Thanks for helping us support you.
Brian Boesch
PS: I am working with Mark Pullen and Bill Scherlis to come up with a
separation of the technical and managerial with the budget being a
separate report. This will allow us to automatically keep reasonably
accurate financial records for the projects in work.
I am interested in conducting an experiment in this area.
If possible please submit this round of budget information in the
format below. I accomplisment and technical information may be in the
same or separate email. If it is impossible to do the following
report by Monday then just use any free format you have in the past.
If you have questions feel free to make assumptions and notate with
comments. Also your comments on this report would be appreciated.
I am not trying to increase work but to increase probability of
getting everyone paid on time. (Without funding gaps).
The following is a first cut at a machine processable report of the
information essential to tracking the overall health of the project.
The essence is that this could be submitted by email on quarterly
intervals or as needed. There should be only rare changes to most of
the information. (Basically the changes would be the gradual
replacement of planned with actual expendatures.
For each contract/task you will make up one of these files. And as
time goes on you will edit it to change projections of spend to
actuals, to add spend-auths, to update gov't action dates, and the
free format text for objectives and accomplishments.
The first word in the line is the key to the automatic processor. Spell
it exactly as shown. Whitespace may be any number of tabs or spaces.
Commas or dollar signs in dollar amounts are optional and may be
included or not. Dates must be month/day/year leading zeros are not
required but are allowed (no spaces). Blank lines are ok.
All fields must be present (except task for non tasking contract, or OPTION).
SPEND and SPEND-AUTH will have varying numbers of lines depending
on contract and number of spend-auths received.
Order of lines of the report is not mandatory, but should be basically
as shown.
!
**********************************************
* TENATIVE EMAIL COST REPORTING FORMAT *
**********************************************
CONTRACTOR contractors name
CONTRACT-NUM contract number
CONTRACT-NAME contract title
TASK-CODE two letter task code (TBD) - if tasking contract
TASK-NAME option name - if tasking contract
AGENT agent
PI-NAME nnnnnnnnnnnnn
PROJECT-NET-ADDR email address for proj
START-WORK mm/dd/yy - date of contract work start
START-CONTRACT mm/dd/yy - date of contract signature
END-DATE mm/dd/yy - date of end of contract
CONTRACT-COST xxxxxx - total cost of contract
(excluding options)
OPTION number mm/dd/yy xxxxx - invoked option
. (additional option lines as needed)
DATE mm/dd/yy - effective date of this report
FUNDING-NEEDED mm/dd/yy - est of last date funded
GOV-ACTION-RQD mm/dd/yy what - date of next gov't action
(funding approve plan ...)
SPEND-AUTH mm/dd/yy fy xxxxx - date and cumulative funding rec'd
SPEND-AUTH mm/dd/yy fy xxxxx
. (one line per contract obligation (spending authority)
. fy is year of the money. mm/dd/yy is the date of the obligation)
. This is an exact dollar figure that should increase as more money
. is obligated against the contract
.
PLANNED-SPEND GFY1 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
PLANNED-SPEND GFY2 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
PLANNED-SPEND GFY3 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
... the amount that was planned for expendature at contract start.
This is a reference against which actual spend will be tracked
It will not change unless contract mods are made to
increase/decrease scope.
Dollar values may be in dollars or in "K" dollars so either
3000000 or 3,000,000 or 3,000K or 3000k are equivalent.
SPEND GFY1 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
SPEND GFY2 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
SPEND GFY3 qtr1 qtr2 qtr3 qtr4
...
. amount expended/planned for expend in each quarter of the CY
all numbers in past are actual.
All numbers before report DATE are actuals. Numbers after
report date are planned.
NON-SALARY-EXPENSES
(any significant non-salary expenses this period)
!
***********************************************************
* EXAMPLE OF THE USE FOR A HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH PROJECT. *
***********************************************************
CONTRACTOR Al's Bakery
CONTRACT-NUM N12345-87-C-1234
CONTRACT-NAME Research in Leavening Techniques
AGENT SPAWAR
PI-NAME Al T Baker
PROJECT-NET-ADDR al@baker.com
START-WORK 02/1/87
START-CONTRACT 05/12/87
END-DATE 04/11/89
CONTRACT-COST 470394
DATE 07/20/88
CONTRACT-MONTH 13
FUNDING-NEEDED 10/3/88
SPEND-AUTH 05/12/87 87 257,123
SPEND-AUTH 10/3/87 88 310,637
PLANNED-SPEND 87 0 0 87k 52k
PLANNED-SPEND 88 52k 52k 52k 52k
PLANNED-SPEND 89 52k 52k 19394
SPEND 87 0 0 60k 51k
SPEND 88 55k 50k 51k 52k
SPEND 89 52k 52k 47k
NON-SALARY-EXPENSES
none
GOV-ACTION-RQD 10/15/88 More money
∂20-Jul-88 0953 VAL re: contexts
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Jul-88 23:21-PT.]
Here is my picture of how contexts will be used in a general purpose knowledge
base. It will have a certain supply of contexts (finite, but changeable), with
a set of embeddings from some contexts to some others. Every fact will be
attached to some context, in which it is an axiom or a theorem. When a fact
is to be added to the system, it will be placed in the context in which it can
be expressed in the most economical way (e.g. if it isn't related to time,
then it will be placed in a context which doesn't have time or situations).
Sometimes, a new context with embeddings to and from it will have to be created
- when the fact is of an entirely new kind.
This is perhaps similar to the structure of Bourbaki's treatise, in which
every fact is placed in the volume that corresponds to its degree of generality.
Facts like "a metric space can be viewed as a topological space" give embeddings.
One use for this structure: Some reasoning strategies can be expressed
in terms of switching between contexts. For instance, the STRIPS strategy
consists in alternating between a context with situation variables and contexts
corresponding to particular situations.
Any comments?
∂20-Jul-88 0959 VAL
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, AIR@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU,
ginsberg@POLYA.Stanford.EDU, sandewal@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
∂20-Jul-88 0244 MILTON@KL.SRI.COM Database Research Seminar 7/22
Received: from KL.SRI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 88 02:44:43 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 88 21:46:53 PDT
From: Jack Milton <MILTON@KL.SRI.COM>
Subject: Database Research Seminar 7/22
To: CS545-PEOPLE@KL.SRI.COM
Message-ID: <12415716352.9.MILTON@KL.SRI.COM>
We will meet this Friday at 3:15 in the afternoon in room 352 Margaret
Jacks Hall --
Sometimes Updates Are Circumscription
Marianne Winslett
University of Illinois
In this talk I will present a new semantics for updating logical
theories that is somewhat more general than others in its genre. I
will then show how this update semantics can be formulated as a
special case of a new type of circumscription.
This work contains elements of both database and artificial
intelligence research; however, this talk will be tailored to a
database audience. In particular, I will trace the recent history of
the study of updates in the database community to motivate the new
formulation of updates, and I will describe the guise in which updates
appear in artificial intelligence problems. No familiarity with
circumscription will be assumed.
∂20-Jul-88 1013 MPS Tadlock Infomatics
Carol Anderson (415) 324-9156 called re:
Crystal program
You received info on it in the mail, I think last
week.
Pat
∂20-Jul-88 1023 boesch@vax.darpa.mil Re: URGENT Incrementals
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 88 10:23:05 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA10864; Wed, 20 Jul 88 13:18:42 EDT
Posted-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 13:06:02 EDT
Message-Id: <8807201706.AA02319@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02319; Wed, 20 Jul 88 13:06:04 EDT
To: dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: Re: URGENT Incrementals
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 13:06:02 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
I was lazy. I am only interested for efforts for which I am PM.
Please do not duplicate effort already sent in for other PM's.
Brian
∂20-Jul-88 1024 CLT Boesch Message
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I just talked to Brian. This is an independent
request from the RECENT Scherlis request. He is
only interested in Qlisp. So I think we can send
the two paragraphs we sent for Scherlis's report
plus financial data. Since we are in limbo, I don't
know quite what to do, but I will put together
numbers (a) based on fact for the time through June 88
and (b) based on the budgets we put in pending proposals for FY89.
I'll send you copy for comments before I ship it.
∂20-Jul-88 1110 VAL Papers and books you brought from Russia
I've looked at them from the point of view of whether any of the authors can
be of interest to us.
1. Khlus (a student of Ivlev), who apparently just graduated, wrote a review of
some basic work on formal nonmonotonic reasoning (including your 1980 and 1986
papers). He understands what he's read, and the references show that he's been
trying to follow the literature. At the end he outlines his own model of
nonmonotonicity (propositional), and promises to keep working on it. Maybe
we should help and encourage him, and send him (or Ivlev) copies of more recent
work. (I noticed though that he doesn't mentions my work in his review, in spite
of the fact that he has access to AI Journal, so I don't know whether I should
write to him.) Have you met him or Ivlev?
2. V. A. Smirnov studied the relation between syllogistic and subsystems of
first- and second-order monadic logic. Probably nontrivial technically,
but not our line of work.
3. E. D. Smirnova is interested in possible world semantics and intensionality.
Her own work is apparently restricted to modifying formalisms proposed by
others. In one place she relates Dana Scott's ideas to Lenin's philosophy.
4. Gershunsky - not a single formula in the whole book. Many references to the
decisions of the last Party Congress.
∂20-Jul-88 1123 VAL Your book
The manuscript, 440 pages double-spaced, has been mailed to the publisher.
∂20-Jul-88 1348 ME SAIL mail
To: JCM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Prof. Mitchell,
I've set up forwarding of your SAIL mail to your Polya account. If you
want, I can remail to you the 20 or so messages that have accumulated for
you on SAIL since January.
A quick glance at these showed that in fact some of them were really
meant for JMC (Prof. McCarthy) instead of JCM.
∂20-Jul-88 2104 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of June computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 88 21:04:51 PDT
Date: Wed 20 Jul 88 21:02:55-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of June computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12415970493.9.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for June.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 316.29 231.32 ***.** 5.47 5.00 2649.82
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 .00 .00 31.54 .00 5.00 36.54
jmc LABREA 2-DMA705 100 .00 .00 55.66 .00 5.00 60.66
Total: 316.29 231.32 ***.** 5.47 15.00 2747.02
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA705 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂20-Jul-88 2143 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU re: US Territory List
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Jul 88 21:42:55 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 20 Jul 88 21:41:27 PDT
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 88 21:41:27 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: US Territory List
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Rats. I always confust Denmark with Dutch, Sweden with Swiss.
-=paulf
∂21-Jul-88 0925 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to meet today
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 88 09:25:15 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28225; Thu, 21 Jul 88 09:24:22 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 09:24:22 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807211624.AA28225@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to meet today
At Rockwell, at noon as usual. I have managed to confuse myself
completely about everything I'm working on, so don't expect much
from me ...
See you there!
Matt
∂21-Jul-88 1046 MPS Ill
I am sorry, but I had to go home. I wasn't feeling well when
I got up, and I am feeling worse now. Hope I feel better and
can come in tomorrow. If not, I will have Rosemary e-mail
you a message. Have a good day. Thanks
Pat
∂21-Jul-88 1500 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil quarterly reports and incremental annual reports
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 88 15:00:08 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA15188; Thu, 21 Jul 88 17:54:20 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 17:53:42-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02754; Thu, 21 Jul 88 17:53:44 EDT
Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 17:53:42-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: quarterly reports and incremental annual reports
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <585525222.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Please be sure to get the reports in AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. In any
case no later than Monday! Also, please send just plain text:
No formatting, markup languages (tex, troff, scribe, etc), or
leading indentations please. If you have already sent in your
reports you can disregard this notice.
Also, I have solicited on several occasions in the past an
official "project mailbox" that is always monitored, even when
you are travelling. Please be sure to respond so we can
maintain accurate mailing lists. We will continue to use
electronic mail for official communuications.
Thanks,
Bill
-------
∂21-Jul-88 1654 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROJECT SUMMARY UPDATE
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 88 16:54:05 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA15507; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:52:45 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 19:52:08-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02910; Thu, 21 Jul 88 19:52:09 EDT
Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 19:52:08-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: PROJECT SUMMARY UPDATE
To: clt@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <585532328.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To Software PIs at Stanford / Rum --
The text below is taken from an internal file we keep summarizing the
various activities of the projects that are supported as part of the
Software Technology program in ISTO. These summaries are used
regularly in project reviews and are an important means by which
projects continue to receive their funding.
Most of the summaries I have on hand were written a year ago based on
text solicited from you. They now need to be updated in preparation
for putting out FY89 incremental funds. This needs to be done EVEN if
your project is not under contract at this particular moment.
I ask you to indicate for me any changes you would like to make to the
prose below for inclusion in a revised report.
Please follow these guidelines:
(1) Do not introduce any additional leading indentation or white
space. Do not transform this into some horrible troff or scribe
source file. We deal with text files for this, so send me back a
message that looks JUST LIKE the one you received.
(2) Insertions should be typed in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS so they can be
easily seen. Deletions should be delimited by [brackets].
(3) The lengths can increase by up to about 20%. Some
details can be added.
(4) If rationale must be indicated (to motivate some change, for
example), include your comments in {curly braces}.
(5) Try not to change too much -- hack only if you feel we are being
really dishonest or missing the point entirely.
(6) Respond to Nicole Fields (nfields@vax.darpa.mil).
I would appreciate receiving these marked up reports as soon as
possible, in any case in the next 10 days. The sooner the better!
This is the time of year when we need to get our records up to date,
so there are lots of solicitations like this. This is your chance to
ensure that we can present your efforts in the best (and most
accurate) possible way and to maximize opportunity for continued
funding. If you fail to respond to this message, we will use the text
we have on hand.
Messages will follow this concerning various other issues.
Thanks,
Bill
================================================================
Project Summary: Stanford - McCarthy/Talcott
Title: Programming and proving with higher order abstractions and reflection
Project History: This project has been a separate task since June 1987.
Previously it was included in the Formal Reasoning task under John McCarthy.
Key papers in the course of the project are:
1980 - [Weyhrauch, R. W.] - Applications of FOL, a proof checker based on a
natural deduction system for a many-sorted first order language, extended by
reflection principles and by mechanisms proof by computation in models.
1984 - [Ketonen, J.] - Overview of EKL, a proof checker based on a natural
deduction system for a many-sorted high-order language with local contexts, a
language for controlling the rewriting, a decision procedure for the direct
fragment of the Gentzen sequent calculus.
1985 - [Talcott] - An intensional semantic theory of function and control
abstractions.
1986 - [Mason] - Proving equations satisfied by first order programs operating
on data with memory and updating operations.
1986 - [Shankar] - Experiments in automatic proof checking.
Technical Summary: This project is concered with the development of correct
and reusable software through the use of higher order abstractions (function,
control, assignment, process) and reflection. A semantic framework for these
notions will be the basis of an experimental system for manipulating and
reasoning about programs.
The goals of this project are the development of logical formalisms for
reasoning about programs that use abstractions and reflection, and the
application of these theoretical results to selected software problems. Example
applications include (1) clarification of existing programming paradigms, (2)
analysis of existing and proposed languages used in the DARPA community for
specifying, writing, and transforming programs, (3) development of a mechanical
proof manager for a simple but powerful Lisp-based logic for expressing
properties of programs, (4) development and implementation of tools for
computer aided reasoning about and operating on programs. These will be applied
to examples including the formalization and proof of properties of object
oriented programs using a functional language approach and the demonstration of
transformation of a high level description of simple coroutines to efficient
machine code.
Principal expected innovations:
(1) Mathematical theory of abstraction and reflection.
(2) Technology for defining and reasoning about operations on programs that use
abstraction and reflection.
(3) A logical basis for formalizing and mechanizing programming activities in a
world with abstraction and reflection.
(4) Expressive high level programming constructs.
(5) Technology for making abstraction and reflection practical programming
tools.
Expected product for distribution, if any:
(1) Technical reports presenting theoretical results and example applications.
(2) Core proof checker for logical formalism developed.
Summary of accomplishments:
1985 - Completed initial development of intensional semantic theory of function
and control abstraction. Applied to proving intensional properties of escape
mechanisms and to proving extensional properties of escape mechanisms, streams,
and coroutines.
1986 - Completed development of theory of computation over data structures with
memory. Used theory to give transformational proofs of correctness of
substantial programs using techniques such a pointer reversal.
1987 - Completed initial stage of development of a first order language for
expressing properties of function and control abstractions with semantics based
on the above semantic theory. The language was used to express and prove
properties of stream, escape, and co-routine mechanisms. Defined models of
computation combining function, control and assignment abstractions. Produced
initial design of a logic for partial functions including principles for
computation induction and reasoning about definedness.
Principal technical reports:
Cartwright, R. and J. McCarthy, Recursive programs as functions in a first
order theory, Proceedings of the international conference on mathematical
studies of information processing, Kyoto, Japan, 1979.
Ketonen, J., EKL -- a mathematically oriented proof checker, Seventh
International Conference on Automated Deduction,ed. by R. E. Shostak, Springer
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1984.
Mason, I.A. and Talcott, C.L. Memories of S-expressions: Proving properties of
Lisp-like programs that destructively alter memory, Department of Computer
Science, Stanford University, 1984.
Mason, I.A., The semantics of destructive Lisp, PhD Thesis, Stanford
University, 1986.
Shankar, N., Proof-checking metamathematics, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas
at Austin, 1986.
Talcott, C., The Essence of Rum: A theory of the intensional and extensional
aspects of Lisp-type computation, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1986.
Talcott, C., Rum: An intensional theory of function and control abstractions,
Workshop on Functional and Logic Programming, Trento, Italy, Dec 1986. To
appear Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Talcott, C. and Weyhrauch, R., Partial evaluation, higher order abstractions,
and reflection principles as system building tools, to appear: Workshop on
Partial Evaluation and Mixed Computation, Denmark, Oct 1987
Weyhrauch, R. W., Prolegomena to a theory of formal reasoning, Artificial
Intelligence, 13, pp. 133--170, 1983.
================================================================
-------
∂21-Jul-88 1749 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROJECT SUMARY -- CPL
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 88 17:49:09 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA15639; Thu, 21 Jul 88 20:47:51 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 20:47:12-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03007; Thu, 21 Jul 88 20:47:14 EDT
Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 20:47:12-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: PROJECT SUMARY -- CPL
To: rpg@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <585535632.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To Software PIs starting work (or likely to start work) in FY88 --
I need to collect some basic information about your project that we
will update from time to time. This information is used by us in
briefing your programs internally in order to sustain funding both for
the individual efforts and for the entire Software Technology program.
I understand that you might not yet have your FY88 funding, due to the
Taft delays now in place. But please respond anyway, since DARPA
will need to get FY89 funds out soon, even if there are fy88 delays
still in effect.
I understand that this will take an hour or two, but we require this
information (from ALL projects funded in ISTO) to meet our needs.
Please respond by computer mail to Nicole Fields, who is assiting me
in preparing this material. Her address is nfields@vax.darpa.mil.
She can be reached at the same number I am at, which is (202)694-5800.
NOTE: "One paragraph" (below) means less than half of a page, and
preferably less than 10 lines of text. If you write anything longer,
we have to edit it down for you, so please don't. I advise recycling
some of the prose you generated for the "incremental" reports we just
solicited. The entire report should be not more than about 120 lines
of text in a file.
This should be a simple honest technical description, with few
adjectives and lots of details. Some indications of the "products" of
the project, be they technical papers, engineering prototypes, or
start-up companies.
You should send one report for each "separately funded effort."
Specifically, each task on a tasking contract requires a separate
report. Multiple efforts under a single umbrella contract require
separate reports. Separate facets as parts of a large effort
negotiated with a single DARPA program manager are all parts of a
single effort requiring only one report. Obviously, separate
contracts require separate reports. If there is a question concerning
this description, please call.
I apologize for the short deadline, which is 10 days from now. But if
you can respond sooner, we will be grateful.
I will edit your prose to bring it into consistent for with the other
records. Once I do this, I'll circulate it back to you for comments.
Concerning the format for the responses: Please send a text file with
no scribe/troff/tex mackup, no leading indentations, and
paragraphs/sections separated by blank lines.
Budget information will be solicited separately.
Thanks,
Bill
________________________________________________________________
1. Project Title.
2. Institution.
3. Names of Principal Investigators (up to three).
4. Brief history of project: major phases, key dates (one paragraph).
5. Technical summary and objectives (one or two paragraphs).
6. Principal expected innovations (up to one paragraph).
7. Expected product for distribution (may be technical reports only).
8. Summary of accomplishments (one paragraph per year).
9. Titles and authors of one to three principal technical reports
per year.
________________________________________________________________
-------
∂21-Jul-88 2335 J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Jul 88 23:35:47 PDT
Date: Thu 21 Jul 88 23:33:06-PDT
From: Joe Brenner <J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <cDwd4@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12416259979.11.J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I'm certainly interested in looking into the matter.
I'm afraid it sounds like one of those situations where everyone
is acting like nitwits, which is to say I don't have any sympathy
for any of the parties involved, so it isn't much more than a
matter of principle with me.
I have one suggestion, though: Contact the guy who was kicked off
campus, and ask him if he wants to be defended. He might be much
more interested in letting the matter drop.
-- Joe B.
-------
∂21-Jul-88 2339 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message was undeliverable to recipient(s):
J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
Here is how the remote host replied to this mail address:
J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
?Bad delimiter, not = while parsing SSX:<MAIL>MAILING-LISTS.TXT.3010
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
21-Jul-88 2339 JMC re: Stanford and the candlelight protest
To: J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU
[In reply to message sent Thu 21 Jul 88 23:33:06-PDT.]
I wasn't going to propose taking up his case. That could involve getting
lots of facts and still ending up with something rather murky. The
candlelight protest is much more clear, because it seems to me
that Diane Conklin's report on the subject contains internal evidence
that she was involved in violating the free speech rights of the
candlelight protesters.
------- End undelivered message -------
∂22-Jul-88 0801 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jul 88 08:01:25 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 309621; Fri 22-Jul-88 10:22:07 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 67235; Fri 22-Jul-88 07:22:39 PDT
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 07:21 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Dragons are even more vanishing than you thought
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, "ilan@score.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880718134856.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880722142147.6.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
bcc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 06:48 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 06:42 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
From Fourier dragon hacking, I can show that . . .
(Following Uncle Shelby), define
∞
/===\
! ! 2 a k + b
∞ 1 - ! ! ( 1 + z SIN (------- π))
==== ! ! n
\ n = 1 3
f(a,b,z) := > ----------------------------------- .
/ a k + b
====
k = -∞
Before, a was 1 and b was phi. I knew that f(1,b,z) converged to 0 for z
in some disk and b rational, but it seems to converge to 0 for all
complex b and z.
I have now shown that f(2,b,z) is also 0 for the same b and z, and empirically,
f(a,b,z) = 0 for -2 ≤ a ≤ 2 and ∀ b,z. At this point you might wonder if f
ever gets off the dime. Yes, the very fact that f(1,b,z) = 0 directly
implies that f(3,b,z) = - πz (sin 2bπ/3)/6.
To make them unvanish, you must make them sparser!
And f blows sky high for complex a.
The value of f(5,b,z) looks like it will come out particularly neat.
4 π B 2 π B
4 π Z (SIN(-----) Z - 4 SIN(-----))
5 5
f(5,b,z) = ----------------------------------- .
2
5 (Z + 16)
Also,
π B π B
π (COS(---) + 1) SIN(---) Z
3 3
f(6,b,z) = - --------------------------- .
6
Actually, the alternating sums (= 2 f(2 a,b,z) - f(a,b,z)) come out nicer, at least
for odd a.
For
integer a, the closed form of f(a,b,z) depends on the expansion of 1/a in base 3.
Thus, since 1/13 (= 2/(3↑3-1)) has a short period in base 3, f(13,b,z) is a very
simple function of z, except that it's numerator has prolix polynomials in sines of
various multiples of π b/13.
Conceivably, f(a,b,z) = f(trunc(a),b,z).
Braino. I meant the "ceiling analog" of trunc, which Common Lisp never bothered to
name (trinc?), since no one would ever need it. But experiment shows that was wrong,
too. I'll still bet that f(a,b,z) looks like f(trinc(a),b,z), with a few "a"s
sprinkled into it.
Presumably, if the sum in f(1,b,z) really does converge everywhere, then so does
f(real a,b,z).
∂22-Jul-88 1003 CLT Your summer salary
Do you want to charge it to the
Unrestricted fund or wait until
we see what gets signed and when?
∂22-Jul-88 1004 CLT Ian
Have you received any comments about
the memo we circulated announcing an
intent to hire Ian?
∂22-Jul-88 1126 LISTSERV%NDSUVM1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Message
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jul 88 11:26:11 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Fri, 22 Jul 88 11:26:07 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 22 Jul 88 11:27:44 PDT
Received: by NDSUVM1 (Mailer X1.25) id 3023; Fri, 22 Jul 88 13:23:33 CDT
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1988 13:23 CDT
From: Revised List Processor (1.5n) <LISTSERV%NDSUVM1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Message
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Your mailing for THEORYNT has been submitted to the list editor:
THEORYNT@YKTVMZ.
∂22-Jul-88 1258 JK edi
Any luck with Feigenbaum & biz school?
∂22-Jul-88 1304 VAL Suppes's net address
FING SUPPES@CSLI responds "never logged in". Can I use that address, or do you
have another one?
∂22-Jul-88 1338 VAL Vladik Kreynovich
To: suppes@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I propose Vladik Kreynovich from Leningrad for the exchange program. I had known
him before I emigrated, and I met him again in Russia last summer. He has done
work in several areas of logic and theoretical computer science. His English
(at least written) is quite good. There are two specific reasons why I think we
would benefit from his visit:
1. Vladik's most recent work is related to the class of algorithms for the
satisfiability problem that Sergey Maslov had proposed about 1980. (Maslov
died in 1982.) This is something they call "Maslov's iterative method". The
people in Russia who understand it say that it is a fundamentally new approach
to NP-complete problems, developed by Maslov on the basis of his own model
of cognitive mechanisms. Logicians in Leningrad liked it so much that for
at least 3 years they had a special research seminar in which they discussed
the method and studied its properties. Last year they published a volume with
several papers on this topic. Vladik's contribution is entitled "The semantics
of Maslov's iterative method". If Vladik comes here, we'll be able to learn
what this is about.
2. When I talked with Vladik last summer, I had the impression that he was
quite knowledgeable about what others had been doing, and good at reviewing
their work. I expect we'll be able to learn from him a lot about logic in
Leningrad in general.
If you like this idea, I'll ask Vladik whether he can come.
- Vladimir
∂22-Jul-88 1438 VAL
∂22-Jul-88 1610 boyer@CLI.COM Computational Logic on the rise
Received: from CLI.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Jul 88 16:10:27 PDT
Received: by CLI.COM (4.0/1); Fri, 22 Jul 88 18:08:02 CDT
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 18:08:02 CDT
From: Robert S. Boyer <boyer@CLI.COM>
Message-Id: <8807222308.AA05193@CLI.COM>
To: wos@anl-mcs.arpa, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Computational Logic on the rise
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 17:16:48 CDT
From: Warren A. Hunt <hunt@CLI.COM>
To: tsd@CLI.COM, rose@CLI.COM
Subject: Scherlis
All,
ISTO has decided to form a new unit inside DARPA called
"Computational Logic"; our funding will come from this
new unit. Jack Schwartz and Bill Scherlis have been
pulling for this and managed to get it approved. (I
don't know why this would be any problem when Schwartz
wants to do it.) They expect funding to increase in the
area of automated deduction, which will be piped into
this new unit, but didn't expect our funding to change.
Scherlis admitted that the name choice was possibly
unfortunate.
...
Warren
∂24-Jul-88 1038 ME dialing to other area codes
∂23-Jul-88 2243 JMC
Can I DIAL numbers with area codes?
ME - Yup. Any reasonable syntax works for giving the number.
∂24-Jul-88 1156 JK
John --
I need a few copies of your CBCL paper; where can I find it? I went
over to Xerox Parc friday. They are starting a project on what they call
metaprotocols --- sounds very similar to your ideas, except that they
are concerned about typesetting standards. Given the plethora of
possible standards already in existence (SGML etc.) and management
pressure to do something about it, they have decided to give up and
deal with the problem on the metaprotocol level. Interestingly enough,
John Clippinger has been talking to me about SGML for some time.
Anyhow, I promised to send them a copy of your paper and suggested that
there might be some way of co-operating.
I will be gone at the EDI conference thursday and friday, after which
I will be in Finland august 1-11.
Jussi
∂24-Jul-88 1435 Qlisp-mailer Is the Boyer Benchmark a good example?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Jul 88 14:35:44 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07786; Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:35:08 PDT
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 88 14:35:08 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807242135.AA07786@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Is the Boyer Benchmark a good example?
Mainly, this note is to RPG. But others may be interested in the Boyer
benchmark, too.
Is the Boyer Benchmark too complicated to use as an example in a
paper? Joe Weening and I are working on a paper describing the
dynamic spawning predicate. We would like to focus on the scheduling
aspects, and not cons contention; we are looking for good examples.
We can always use Fibonacci, Tak, and Matrix multiply, but we are wary
of Boyer and associated complications.
We would present the code (in an Appendix?) and interpret data similar
to that near the end of this memo.
The following code contains the modifications to the Boyer benchmark
to remove special variables. After the code are experimental runs
on 4,5,6,7, and 8 processors. The speed-ups range from 3.35//4 to
5.32//8; By my calculation, the benchmark spends about 1771
milliseconds in calls to CONS. If CONS is completely serial, then the
best possible speed-up is something like: (/ 9887 1771.0) = 5.5827217
One question, then, is "How serial is CONS?"; another question is "How
would the spawning rate change if CONS were parallel?"
The number of spawns in this benchmark is roughly linear in the number
of processors, times the square of the computation tree's depth (in
rewrite/rewrite-with-lemmas).
An interesting note, the running times are more consistent than the
number of spawns; the standard deviation on the running time tends
to be about 1% of the mean, while the first standard deviation on the
spawning total tends to be 5 to 8 percent of the mean. Interesting?
;;****** modified boyer code
(defun one-way-unify1 (term1 term2 unify-subst)
(cond ((atom term2)
(let ((temp (assq term2 unify-subst)))
(cond (temp
(if (equal term1 (cdr temp)) unify-subst))
(t (cons (cons term2 term1)
unify-subst)))))
((atom term1) nil)
((eq (car term1) (car term2))
(one-way-unify1-lst (cdr term1) (cdr term2) unify-subst))))
(defun one-way-unify1-lst (lst1 lst2 usub)
(cond ((null lst1) usub)
;; *** the main trick for removing the unify-subst special variable.
((setq usub (one-way-unify1 (car lst1) (car lst2) usub))
(one-way-unify1-lst (cdr lst1) (cdr lst2) usub))))
(defun rewrite (term)
(cond ((atom term) term)
(t (rewrite-with-lemmas
(cons (car term) (rewrite-args (cdr term)))
(get (car term) (quote lemmas))))))
(defun rewrite-args (lst)
(declare (inline cons))
(cond
((atom (car lst))
(if (cdr lst)
(cons (car lst) (rewrite-args (cdr lst)))
lst))
((cdr lst) ;; avoid spawning a useless task or making a useless funcall
;; state dependent parallelism
#?(cons (rewrite-with-lemmas
(cons (caar lst) (rewrite-args (cdar lst)))
(get (caar lst) (quote lemmas)))
(rewrite-args (cdr lst))))
(t (cons (rewrite-with-lemmas
(rewrite-args (car lst))
(get (caar lst) (quote lemmas)))
nil))))
******** the experimental runs, using condition-memory.
> (time (boyer-test) )
Elapsed real time = 10440 milliseconds
User cpu time = 9887 milliseconds
System cpu time = 0 milliseconds
Total cpu time = 9887 milliseconds
T
> (cpu (boyer-test) 4)
Missing process shells. Retrieving them... 320 320
CPU: 2973 SYS: 79 Spawns: 7557
CPU: 2932 SYS: 0 Spawns: 6923
CPU: 2963 SYS: 4 Spawns: 7687
CPU: 2923 SYS: 0 Spawns: 6831
#P:4 (BOYER-TEST)
CPU (min mean stddev): 2923 2947.7 20.8
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 20.7 33.7
Spawn (min mean stddev): 6831 7249.5 376.7
Adding (BOYER-TEST) to experiments database.
NIL
> (setf *number-of-processors* 5)
5
> (cpu (boyer-test) 4)
Missing process shells. Retrieving them... 320 320
CPU: 2470 SYS: 7 Spawns: 7983
CPU: 2461 SYS: 0 Spawns: 7061
CPU: 2464 SYS: 16 Spawns: 8003
CPU: 2480 SYS: 0 Spawns: 8569
#P:5 (BOYER-TEST)
CPU (min mean stddev): 2461 2468.7 7.2
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 5.7 6.6
Spawn (min mean stddev): 7061 7904.0 540.6
NIL
> (setf *number-of-processors* 6)
6
> (cpu (boyer-test) 4)
Missing process shells. Retrieving them... 320 320
CPU: 2163 SYS: 8 Spawns: 8881
CPU: 2187 SYS: 0 Spawns: 10053
CPU: 2197 SYS: 0 Spawns: 10473
CPU: 2174 SYS: 0 Spawns: 9717
#P:6 (BOYER-TEST)
CPU (min mean stddev): 2163 2180.2 12.9
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 2.0 3.5
Spawn (min mean stddev): 8881 9781.0 584.6
NIL
> (setf *number-of-processors* 7)
7
> (cpu (boyer-test) 4)
Missing process shells. Retrieving them... 320 320
CPU: 1995 SYS: 0 Spawns: 11551
CPU: 1957 SYS: 8 Spawns: 10035
CPU: 1959 SYS: 0 Spawns: 10429
CPU: 1978 SYS: 0 Spawns: 11295
#P:7 (BOYER-TEST)
CPU (min mean stddev): 1957 1972.2 15.5
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 2.0 3.5
Spawn (min mean stddev):10035 10827.5 618.2
NIL
> (setf *number-of-processors* 8)
8
> (cpu (boyer-test) 4)
Missing process shells. Retrieving them... 320 320
CPU: 1824 SYS: 0 Spawns: 11283
CPU: 1850 SYS: 0 Spawns: 12087
CPU: 1871 SYS: 0 Spawns: 13779
CPU: 1875 SYS: 0 Spawns: 13903
#P:8 (BOYER-TEST)
CPU (min mean stddev): 1824 1855.0 20.3
SYS (min mean stddev): 0 0.0 0.0
Spawn (min mean stddev):11283 12763.0 1115.7
NIL
>
> (/ 9887.0 1855)
5.3299193
> (/ 9887.0 1972.0)
5.013692
> (/ 9887.0 2180)
4.535321
> (/ 9887.0 2468)
4.006078
> (/ 9887.0 2947)
3.3549373
>
∂25-Jul-88 0224 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Bad taste in Palo Alto
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 88 02:24:06 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09053; Mon, 25 Jul 88 02:23:29 PDT
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 88 02:23:29 PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8807250923.AA09053@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Cc: su-etc@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU, ilan@score
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 25 Jul 88 0007 PDT <uI077@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Bad taste in Palo Alto
Yes, for example, what if Stephen Hawking ran a restaurant in Calcutta?
∂25-Jul-88 0900 MPS Rodman
What papers are you referring to? I can't seem to recall
what you are talking about.
Pat
∂25-Jul-88 1100 JMC
beckmann gets citation
∂25-Jul-88 1250 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil [William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>: Annual reports]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 88 12:48:51 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03281; Mon, 25 Jul 88 15:20:19 EDT
Posted-Date: Mon 25 Jul 88 15:19:13-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00463; Mon, 25 Jul 88 15:19:14 EDT
Date: Mon 25 Jul 88 15:19:13-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>: Annual reports]
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <585861553.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
The reports descibed below should arrive here no later than
Tuesday noon by netmail. Please send us ordinary text files, with
no leading indentation, blank lines separating paragraphs, and
no scribe/troff/tex markup. Please call Nicole Fields (see info
below) if there is any question or problem. Thanks,
Bill
---------------
Received-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 88 18:09:03 EDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA07021; Fri, 8 Jul 88 18:09:03 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 8 Jul 88 18:09:46-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02230; Fri, 8 Jul 88 18:09:50 EDT
Date: Fri 8 Jul 88 18:09:46-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Annual reports
To: SW-PI
Cc: NFIELDS
Reply-To: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <584402986.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(216)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PI Community:
I am sorry to have to make additional requests for information, now
that you have so recently completed the quarterly reports, but we are
now needing a small amount of additional information in order to put
out the first set of incremental funding actions for FY89.
We will extrapolate from the fiscal information you submitted with the
recent quarterly reports (unless you are easily able to provide more
recent figures).
We require some technical information concerning progress in the past
FY and plans for the next. Please send this in the form of a mail
message. No fancy typesetting is required. The total length should
be not more than several paragraphs. You may want to recycle items
from quarterly reports. Send the responses to NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil.
More specifically:
(1) Accomplishments for FY88. Include about three to five specific
items. One or two sentences only for each should be provided. These
should be contentful and specific.
(2) Objectives for FY89. Again, include three to five specific items.
If your project consumes ANY FY88 funds, you should include something
in item (1), even if you are only under anticipatory costs.
PLEASE send us a project mailbox name, as described in the request for
quarterly reports. If your current address is the right address to
use, please say so.
We are trying to keep your paperwork to a minimum, which is why we are
requesting only this limited amount of information instead of the
usual full annual report.
We will, however, be asking you very soon to help us update our
internal project summary documents. I will send out (via netmail)
portions of the description of your project that we require for our
internal records. I will ask for fast turnaround at editing this to
bring it up to date. I expect these to go out next Wednesday morning,
with a response requested by the following Monday.
Summary:
(0) Please send your response to NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil.
Do this no later than Sunday 17 July (so we have
it Monday morning).
(1) Accomplishments for FY88.
(2) Objectives for FY89.
(3) Project mailbox information.
(4) Prepare to wordsmith our internal summary.
If you have questions, please call Nicole Fields at (202)695-9373.
Thanks!!
Bill
-------
-------
-------
∂25-Jul-88 1301 JMC
stuff to Beckmann
∂25-Jul-88 1435 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Our Reporting Requests
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Jul 88 14:34:48 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03651; Mon, 25 Jul 88 17:21:17 EDT
Posted-Date: Mon 25 Jul 88 17:20:07-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00521; Mon, 25 Jul 88 17:20:10 EDT
Date: Mon 25 Jul 88 17:20:07-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Our Reporting Requests
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: squires@vax.darpa.mil, boesch@vax.darpa.mil, pullen@vax.darpa.mil,
NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <585868807.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PIs:
There is some confusion concerning the our current reporting needs.
This message is intended to clarify our exact requirements and to help
you plan for the future. I apologize for the quantity of reporting
needed -- as our office evolves in its procedures and as internal
DARPA program review schedules change, reporting requirments change.
This occasionally means that we have to do hasty solicitations of
financial data, technical prose, and the like.
Ordinarily we try to keep the reporting level minimal and, in any
case, predictable. Of course, sometimes we don't succeed.
Here is what we have asked for in the past several months:
(1) The regular quarterly reports for routine progress reviews.
(2) A brief annual report of accomplishments and objectives to help
us justify putting out annual incremental funding actions.
(3) An update to the project summary information we maintain for
major budget and technical reviews.
(4) A reliable netmail address to use for you. This is a mailbox that
should be read every day or so, even when the actual PI is travelling.
I suggest a box called <project>-pi@<your-site>.
If you have not responded to the solicitations (or did not receive
them) please respond now or let us know that you need the text of the
message soliciting the information. Responses should be directed to
me (scherlis@vax.darpa.mil) or to Nicole Fields
(nfields@vax.darpa.mil). You can call either of us at (202)694-5800.
In the future, we will move to a system that (we hope) is more
efficient, for you and for us. The system will have the following
features:
(1) FINANCIAL REPORTS. Financial and technical information will be
solicited separately. Financial information will be provided to us
using a stylized form that should be computer readable on this end.
(We solicit financial information because expenditure information
arrives very slowly through our normal channels.) We will solicit a
minimal amount of financial information every quarter. The form of
the solicitation will be uniform across ISTO.
(2) QUARTERLY REPORTS. We will solicit about 20 or 30 lines of
technical information every quarter. We will be interested in
immediate accomplishments and objectives.
(3) PROJECT SUMMARY UPDATE. Every year, we will provide you an
opportunity to bring our project summaries up to date. This will
usually happen around May to July.
(4) ANNUAL REPORTS. Annual reports will be solicited (which you can
compose together from the various proceeding quarterly reports) to
include short project description, accomplishments for the past FY,
and objectives for the next FY. This usually happens in June.
Normally, you should just steal items from the previous quarterly
reports you have sent in. Also, you should send us a small number of
publications and tech reports each year.
(5) SIGNIFICANT EVENTS. Finally, we will request every project to
send us at least one "significant event report" each year, at any time
during the year. The report should be written as if for a reader of
Scientific American (or Science magazine).
More detailed formats for these reports will follow in separate
messages.
-------
∂26-Jul-88 0656 JK
∂25-Jul-88 2231 JMC Feigenbaum
says Prof. Jerry Miller is the person to talk to in the Business
School. I'll call him tomorrow, and if it seems useful, arrange
for both of us to see him.
--------------------------
Can you make the appt either tomorrow or else after aug 12?
I will be gone aug 1-11.
∂26-Jul-88 1054 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil Incremental report due
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jul 88 10:54:40 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06280; Tue, 26 Jul 88 13:53:10 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 26 Jul 88 13:51:54-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA01137; Tue, 26 Jul 88 13:51:56 EDT
Date: Tue 26 Jul 88 13:51:54-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Incremental report due
To: rpg@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <585942714.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Please send the Incremental Funding report today. It is urgently required.
Thanks.
-------
∂26-Jul-88 1127 CLT Incremental report due (Qlisp - task 8)
To: scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: boesch@VAX.DARPA.MIL, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In response to the Scherlis request of 8-july
we sent to nfields on 17-july a report with the following info
(1) Accomplishments for FY88.
(2) Objectives for FY89.
(3) Project mailbox information.
If you did not receive this let me know and I will resend it.
The quarterly report will be sent when people return from the
Lisp conference.
The report requested by Boesch on 20-july will be sent as soon as
the financial data is available. Sharon is so busy preparing data
for the umbrella and other hassles due to the financial chaos caused
by the freeze that she has not had time to generate the necessary data.
These are the only reports requested from Qlisp that I am aware of.
If there is some other report please specify.
∂26-Jul-88 1730 minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu Congratulations
Received: from gyre.umd.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Jul 88 17:29:58 PDT
Received: from jacksun.cs.umd.edu by gyre.umd.edu (5.58/4.7)
id AA10855; Tue, 26 Jul 88 20:28:40 EDT
Received: by jacksun.cs.umd.edu (5.54/3.14)
id AA13756; Tue, 26 Jul 88 20:31:09 EDT
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 88 20:31:09 EDT
From: minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu (Jack Minker)
Return-Path: <minker@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
Message-Id: <8807270031.AA13756@jacksun.cs.umd.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Congratulations
Dear John,
I was delighted to read that you have been awarded the
prestigious Kyoto prize. It is certainly well-deserved.
Congratulations and best wishes to you.
Jack Minker
∂27-Jul-88 2112 JK MAD
I talked to Nafeh; we seem to be in better shape now. He is very
interested in the EDI stuff. I brought him somewhat up to date on
the latest developments. As usual, I sense that he is being a little
unrealistic about the timeframe for commercial applications....
∂28-Jul-88 1028 VAL
In your Lighthill report paper, you said: "...I shall lose a %CL%1250 bet".
What is "%CL%"?
∂28-Jul-88 2000 JMC
safety
∂29-Jul-88 0826 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Conclusions Take 2
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 88 08:26:00 PDT
Date: Fri 29 Jul 88 11:13:12-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Conclusions Take 2
To: duane.adams@c.cs.cmu.edu, dongarra@anl-mcs.arpa,
gannon%rdvax.dec@decwrl.dec.com, gossard@cadlab2.mit.edu,
hearn@rand-unix.arpa, jlh@sierra.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
mchenry%guvax.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu, ouster@GINGER.BERKELEY.EDU,
ralston@mcc.com, thornj@max.acs.washington.edu, CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa,
troywil@ibm.com
cc: goodman@mis.arizona.edu
Message-ID: <12418189667.39.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Below is a revised version of a conclusions chapter. PLEASE
TREAT IT AS PROPRIETARY AND DO NOT SHARE OUTSIDE OF THE
COMMITTEE. In advance of an early August mailing of the complete
draft, I am circulating this version to get your reactions and
input. Please note that, upon reflecting on the notes and
discussions from the last meeting, I grew increasingly uncertain
as to the proper focus of the recommendations; they definitely
need work. Comments would be welcomed at your earliest
convenience.
Regards...Marjory
==================================================================
conclu3.doc
CONCLUSIONS
The committee's assessment of computer science and technology trends
yielded four sets of broad conclusions and a focused set of
recommendations. These overall conclusions are outlined below, followed
by recommendations. Other, technology- and country-specific conclusions
are discussed above [in chapters ]. Figure X lists the primary
__
conclusions of this committee.
Technology Trends
Computer technology will continue to change quickly. This dynamism
and the inherent difficulties of forecasting that come with it make it
difficult to precisely specify what should and should not be controlled
[moving target].* They also make it difficult to recommend technical
alternatives to regulations, since technical fixes are often weakened by
emerging technology. Rapid change in computer technology is realized as a
continuing influx of new, state-of-the-art technologies offering
increasing power, complexity, and ease of use for various communities of
users. Although the most advanced technologies (e.g., supercomputers or
state-of-the-art chip fabrication equipment) are relatively scarce and
confined to the most sophisticated (and affluent) users, rapid technology
change will make high-end technology accessible to wider communities of
users in periods as short as a couple of years following
commercialization. For example, the power of desktop computers and
professional workstations is rapidly approaching [and in some cases
equaling?] that of older supercomputers.
While the military was a major factor in computer technology
development through much of the 1970s, civilian efforts have originated
much of the more recent advances and are expected to continue to drive
computer science and technology in the West. Some civilian technology is
even beginning to rival some military-specification technology in meeting
some military needs. Thus, although special military computer technology
(e.g., VHSIC ships) will continue to be developed, civilian technology
will continue to be of growing importance to the military as well as the
rest of the economy.
Balancing the flow of new, state-of-the-art technology is the
proliferation of lower-level hardware and software that can be considered
commodities. This trend is being reinforced by the trend toward
increasing standardization across hardware and software. Commodity
products are available in relatively high volumes, at relatively low
costs, tend to be relatively small and easy to transport, and offer
functionality that is available from multiple producers; further, they
tend to be available through multiple distribution channels, including
retailers. It is now possible, for example, to buy sophisticated chips at
[discount] retail chains and sophisticated PC software by mail-order.
These characteristics make commodity technologies hard to control. They
also help to explain why commodity technologies are fundamental to the
economic health of the computer industry: they are sold in high volumes
and they are often building blocks for computer systems with higher added
value.
Mirroring the spectrum of supply from high-end to commodity is a
spectrum of value to users. High-end systems such as supercomputers or
state-of-the-art chip manufacturing equipment can convey substantial
benefits to users when only one to a handful are used. This is true in
the West and especially true for the East Bloc, where national
demand/markets for sophisticated computers is relatively small. Commodity
technologies, by contrast, convey added impact when used in volume
(hundreds to millions).
One trend in particular, the movement toward concurrent processing,
will greatly influence the computer sector and the computer science and
technology field. Concurrency has begun to produce changes in hardware,
and further progress will involve not only new hardware but also
significant change in software and in the structuring of computational
problems and problem-solving. These developments are likely to cascade
through the field and associated markets over time. They will change the
base line in an environment where CMEA countries have built up native
capabilities by copying and standardizing older technologies...
Global Impact
The computer science and technology gap between the United States (or
the West generally) and the CMEA countries is wide and widening. But this
gap presents an incomplete picture of the world. There is another gap
between the United States and other Western nations, and it is thin and
narrowing; in some cases it is negative and worsening. This second gap is
important economically and therefore important for national security in
the long term; the United States cannot afford to be chauvinistic in the
computer arena.
Computer science and technology are worldwide. A growing number of
countries, including such newly-industrializing countries as Singapore and
Brazil as well as developed nations, actively produce computer goods and
services, especially such commodity products as PCs, [...] memories, and
low-level software but also more sophisticated products. The spread of
computer science and technology is abetted by many mechanisms besides
product exports, including an open scientific literature, multinational
operations of computer-oriented companies, international cooperative
ventures, product copying, and the education and training in the United
States of computer specialists from around the world. Key people in the
microelectronics industries of Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, for example,
were educated in the United States.
Innovation in computer science and technology is also occurring in a
growing number of locations. As a result, the United States has lost the
technology lead in such areas as memory chips and certain types of
fabrication equipment, now led by the Far East, and its lead is threatened
in others such as supercomputers and even large software systems, where
Far Eastern and Western European nations have targeted efforts. For
example, restrictions on supercomputer exports have motivated government
support for indigenous development efforts in W. Germany and France. Few
foreign efforts have led to breakthroughs but many have yielded
incremental advances benefiting local industry.
Global positioning reflects more than scientific effort. It appears
increasingly sensitive, for example, to regional movements to promote
computer technology standards most favorable to indigenous industry, such
as the Open Systems Interconnection model championed by Western Europe.
It can also reflect differences in industrial organization among
countries. For example, the favorable U.S. environment for small
businesses has benefited the U.S. software industry, while European
approaches to banking have fostered W. European leadership in smart card
technology. Finally, the separation of U.S. military and civilian
technology development has also affected U.S. positioning. Special
military requirements add time to the technology development cycle while
limiting commercial spinoffs, and commercial access to specialized
technology is restricted. For example, U.S. reluctance to share
cryptographic technology has both constrained commercial opportunities for
U.S. firms and fostered the development of competing approaches and
international standards overseas.
The global rank ordering in hardware overall is Japan - United States
- Western Europe - CMEA. Japan's strengths in consumer electronics are
likely to sustain its edge in the next generations of hardware. In
software overall, the global rank ordering is United States - Western
Europe - Japan - CMEA. If current trends continue, a global division of
labor in this field could emerge, with different countries or regions
serving as principal suppliers for different aspects of computer
technology.
Controllability
Overall, developments in computer technology itself, as well as
increasing geographic availability and falling prices, are making it
harder and harder to control. Technical trends that vitiate control
include the increasing miniaturization of components and machines, the
increasing importance of software in computer systems, and the increasing
computer networking across wide areas and international boundaries.
Miniaturization makes computer products from chips to whole machines
increasingly transportable. Software is inherently easy to transport and
to replicate, and it will become easier to copy as architectures become
more open and standardized. International data communications is
flourishing among business and research entities. In particular, it is
integral to the operation of multational companies in computer-related
businesses, linking research, development, and production activities
dispersed among several countries. It is also fundamental to the growing
use of supercomputers, which are typically accessed by regional and even
national users over wide-area networks.
Computer science and technology advance faster than most bureaucratic
processes. The latest round of revisions to the regulations on computer
exports, for example, took several months of preparation within the United
States, several months to negotiate with other countries participating in
COCOM, and an additional few months to translate into the U.S. version of
the regulations. This was the first major review to occur in four years,
although subsequent revisions are expected to take place at shorter
intervals. By contrast, integrated circuit technologies can advance a
generation or two in a period of 2 to 3 years.[?] While this committee
did not study the control process, per se, it did find evidence of a
mismatch between the rates of change.
While rapid progress in computer science and technology makes control
more difficult, it also places a premium on running faster, on excelling
in this field and achieving and maintaining competitive advantage. The
implication of growing rivalry from other countries is that the United
States is at risk of losing its edge in technologies most worth
controlling. While it may be losing to other Western nations, the
increase in the number of players will make controlling the West-East flow
of technology increasingly difficult.
The United States, and to a lesser extent other Western nations, has
an intrinsic advantage in developing computer technology that comes from
sophisticated infrastructure. Computers are pervasive here, they are part
of an infrastructure supporting innovation that ranges from
school-children comfortable with computers and computer-based items to
sophisticated communications networks. CMEA countries lack comparable
human and physical infrastructure. A glimpse of this disparity comes from
statistics on telephones: in 1985 the USSR had over 11 telephones per 100
people while the United States had about 80 per 100 [U.N.]. These
differences are so great and so systemic that erasing them will take time,
time during which the state of computer science and technology in CMEA
countries will continue to be depressed. However, the transition to a
sophisticated infrastructure only has to happen once.
Policy Impact
The premise for policy is that the United States and its allies should
maintain the gap between the West and the East in terms of computer
science and technology. How big the gap and just how it should be
maintained are open to debate.
The existing East-West gap reflects three factors: export controls,
the perception of limited East Bloc market potential among Westerners, and
internal constraints on computer technology development and use. As
outlined above, a number of circumstances appear likely to soften the
influence of each factor.
Meanwhile, the Soviet interest in technology transfer continues.
While public attention to the perestroika reforms focus attention on
improvements sought for the general economy, military modernization is
recognized as one of the drivers of perestroika. The military has been a
priority receiver of advanced technology in CMEA countries, and there is
no evidence that civilian concerns will take priority over military ones.
In this environment, controls can be important to maintaining the
West-East gap by raising technology acquisition costs for CMEA countries
and by moderating the diffusion of computer technologies out of the
military and into other CMEA user communities, where it could be used to
cultivate greater self-sufficiency in this area.
While globalization and commoditization, in particular, make effective
controls difficult, there are some computer technologies that demand
special control effort. These are items that have compelling military
significance, that could enable CMEA countries to make substantial gains
in their technology base, or that represent key leverage points in the
increasingly interdependent world of computer technology. In addition to
military-specific technology (e.g., VHSIC or on-board fire control
systems) priority items include:
-- [Computer] manufacturing technology, especially chip fabrication
lines, including such pivotal elements as EB machines
-- High-end products across the board where one or even a handful can
convey significant impact
-- General-purpose supercomputers
-- Design systems, including complete CAD/CAM systems
-- Processed materials, including high-grade silicon manufacturing
capabilities and ferro-magnetic materials for storage
-- Development environments for large-scale software
-- Integrated systems with specific military applications, including
network management systems
Overall, these technologies tend to be relatively advanced, in contrast to
commodity technologies. A focus on these technologies is likely to [bring
more bang for the buck], while controlling commodity technologies is
likely to be infeasible, in part because more of those technologies (in
terms of variety and unit volume) are beginning to come from countries
that cannot or will not enforce controls to the degree that the United
States has sought from domestic vendors.
Competitiveness of the U.S. computer sector is fundamental for
achieving the goal of export controls, but it could become a victim of a
poorly-designed control regime. Achieving the goals of control requires
the United States to run faster, to assure that more of the best
technology originates in the United States and, as best as possible,
remains within the West. Running faster requires a climate conducive to
innovation. Controls can undermine that climate if they close U.S. firms
out of Western markets and either limit their ability to invest in
innovation or encourage firms in other countries to develop their own
products. Controls can help U.S. firms run faster where the lag between
concept and product is relatively long, but they can hinder where the lag
is short, and this is the case in many aspects of computer technology.
The suitability of computer technologies for both civilian and
military use makes it particularly difficult to structure an effective
control regime that falls between the extremes of controlling all or
controlling none of the technology. Neither extreme is desirable, of
course, but this committee's own deliberations underscores the fact that
it is difficult to posit any one dividing line that would satisfy even a
majority of interested parties. In this environment, an important issue
is whether new computer technologies should be assumed to be born
controlled or born free of controls. In either case, quick review of the
appropriateness of the control status is essential to maximize the
potential for U.S. market success and minimize the risk to national
secuirty. However, anecdotal evidence casts doubt on the ability of the
present system to provide sufficiently rapid review.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee arrived at the following set of policy recommendations:
Commodities
Commodity computer technologies should be identified and treated in
export control regimes according to a two-tier definition: Technologies
are commodities if they are readily available from foreign sources outside
COCOM control (a condition that makes them effectively uncontrollable, at
least within the West). Otherwise, there may be other factors (e.g., high
volume, low price, small size, ready availability of substitutes) that
make them effectively uncontrollable.
Priority Ordering
Computer technologies should not be treated alike. Flexible
definitions that account for technology change and market developments are
essential to an effective control regime. At the high end, supercomputers
epitomize those technologies conveying substantial benefit to the East
Bloc. Mid-range computers represent a more ambiguous category, calling
for case-by-case evaluation. While one family of mid-range systems, VAXs,
can convey a lot of benefit because of the vast array of software and the
worldwide availability of expertise, other mid-range systems may offer
more limited impact. Finally, commodities should be recognized as
essentially uncontrollable, especially within the West.
Network Security
Wide-area network user communities, including researchers and computer
industry personnel, should be informed of the range of security risks
associated with data communications. Where international communications
links are used, effort should be made to have sender/caller information
made available with overseas calls.
Process
Two aspects of the control process require attention. First, better
and ongoing monitoring of computer technology development and associated
market trends is needed. It is particularly important to identify when a
technology passes into the commodity class. Second, timely and rapid
review of any definitions of controlled technologies or categorization of
technologies as controlled or not controlled is needed to minimize adverse
impacts on industry while continuing to protect national security. Both
functions should involve experts from industry and the research community,
for example through advisory committees.
=========================================================================
* A key example is the issue of how to define supercomputers, which are
subject to case-by-case export restrictions. Within the computer science
and technology field, supercomputers are usually defined as the fastest,
most powerful machines of the day. That definition would not work,
however, for an export control program because it would exclude machines
that are vastly superior to machines indigenous to the East Bloc and that
could, even if only one or two were acquired, advance Eastern
applications. On the other hand, existing definitions are based on Cray-1
and Cyber 205 technologies that are less capable than leading-edge
machines and represent a level of technology that is becoming more widely
available. Further complicating the problem is the fact that "super"
capabilities may be found in multiprocessor systems that, for example,
harness multiple workstations working concurrently on the same problems,
or in sophisticated machines that are smaller and less expensive than
conventional supercomputers. At issue is the capability; the physical
representation may vary and will change relatively quickly.
-------
∂29-Jul-88 1000 JMC
859-1200
∂29-Jul-88 1548 Qlisp-mailer meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Jul 88 15:48:26 PDT
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00424; Fri, 29 Jul 88 15:47:40 PDT
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Fri 29 Jul 88 15:47:06-PDT
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 88 15:47 PDT
From: rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Sender: GLB@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: meeting
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <19880729224746.6.GLB@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
Unless there are violent objections to the unusual time, the next Qlisp
meeting will be held this wednesday (the 3rd of august) at 3pm in
MJH352. On the agenda will be the developments in the parallel (and
sequential) Lisp world as seen by those of us who went to the Lisp
conference.
Igor.
∂30-Jul-88 1521 RPG CPL Project Summary
I sent this to Nicole Fields as requested by Scherlis 9 days ago:
1. Project Title: Design of a Common Prototyping Language
2. Institution: Stanford University
3. Names of Principal Investigators (up to three).
John McCarthy
Richard Gabriel
4. Brief history of project: major phases, key dates (one paragraph).
An informal group interested in prototyping began to meet in February 1988
to discuss requirements for a prototyping language and system suitable for
prototyping Ada and Common Lisp programs. A proposal to design such a
language was made based on disussions with that group in March 1988.
5. Technical summary and objectives (one or two paragraphs).
The goal of the project is to produce an initial design of a prototyping
language and a prototyping environment for it. The prototyping language
will be suitable for prototyping both Ada and Common Lisp programs. The
language will be very high level and will be suitable for quickly
producing prototypes and for easily modifying and instrumenting them. The
environment will support Ada and Common Lisp code as part of the
prototype. The language will support object-oriented and imperative
programming styles, and will support parallel and possibly distributed
processing. The prototyping language will be rigorously defined and
should support semi-automatic transformation of prototypes into either
target language.
The prototyping environment will support development, debugging,
modification, and instrumentation. It will be window based and will
provide mechanisms for maintaining multiple versions, multiple execution
spaces, program building, program documentation and annotation, and an
environmental database (persistent object base). The environmental
database will maintain such prototype information as call and data usage
graphs, documentation and annotation links, version and execution space
states, and prototyping environment methods.
6. Principal expected innovations (up to one paragraph).
Innovations are broken down into those in the prototyping language and
those in the prototyping environment. The prototyping language will
support a blending of abstract data types and object-oriented programming,
program composition, the encapsulation of existing Ada and Common Lisp
programs, and high level parallel programming constructs. The prototyping
environment will support a high level of integration provided by a
database-centered environment. The level of integration will surpass all
existing programming environments.
7. Expected product for distribution (may be technical reports only).
The project will result in a design of the prototyping language and
environment. The design will include an implementation plan. If additional
funds are available, a prototype of the prototyping system will be
produced.
8. Summary of accomplishments (one paragraph per year).
None yet.
9. Titles and authors of one to three principal technical reports
per year.
None yet.
∂30-Jul-88 1630 Qlisp-mailer Goodbye
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Jul 88 16:30:23 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02677; Sat, 30 Jul 88 16:29:34 PDT
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 16:25:39 PDT
From: Hiroshi "Gitchang" Okuno <Okuno@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Goodbye
To: hpp@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
ssrg@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, communications@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
dekleer.pa@xerox.com, forbus@p.cs.uiuc.edu, boyer@cli.com,
gls@think.com, round@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, ono@spar.slb.com,
franz!kunze@berkeley.edu, tanaka@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
rothberg@polya.stanford.edu, nakashim@russell.stanford.edu,
tutiya@russell.stanford.edu, suzuki@russell.stanford.edu,
peters@russell.stanford.edu, horne@ararat.stanford.edu,
kawai@csli.stanford.edu, rc.neo@forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Knowledge Systems Laboratory, CSD, Stanford University
Group: Heuristic Programming Project
Project: Advanced Architectures Project
Address: 701 Welch Road, Building C, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1703
Phone: +1 (415)725-4854
Message-Id: <12418541459.14.OKUNO@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Today is my last day working at Stanford. I'd like to thank everyone
for his/her friendship and support during my stay.
Bye,
- Gitchang -
P.S. I'll be reached easily by E-mail. My address is
okuno%ntt-20.ntt.jp@relay.cs.net .
Or okuno@sumex-aim.stanford.edu and okuno@go4.stanford.edu
will be forwarded to the above address.
Fingering okuno@sumex-aim.stanford.edu will give you more information.
-------
∂31-Jul-88 1434 LEHMANN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Biodegradeable diapers
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Jul 88 14:33:55 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 14:22:29 PDT
From: harold lehmann <LEHMANN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Biodegradeable diapers
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <7KqRL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12418781181.23.LEHMANN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Thanks for your empirical suggestion. Was that cum glossus in buccus (?sp)?
H.
-------
∂01-Aug-88 0521 boesch@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen: PI Meeting Announcement]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Aug 88 05:21:30 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA14204; Mon, 1 Aug 88 08:14:12 EDT
Posted-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 88 08:00:02 EDT
Message-Id: <8808011200.AA00214@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00214; Mon, 1 Aug 88 08:00:06 EDT
To: dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: [Mark Pullen: PI Meeting Announcement]
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 88 08:00:02 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
There will be a PI meeting. See attached note.
Brian
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path:
Delivery-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:47:52 -0400
>From pullen Sat Jul 30 19:47:34 1988
Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:47:34 EDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA11590; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:47:34 EDT
Posted-Date: Sat 30 Jul 88 19:44:41-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04354; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:44:42 EDT
Date: Sat 30 Jul 88 19:44:41-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: PI Meeting Announcement
To: ISTO-PM
Message-Id: <586309481.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Please pass the following to all of your Principal Investigators:
Dear PI,
The purpose of this message is to announce that DARPA/ISTO is planning
a Principal Investigators Meeting, and all ISTO PIs are invited.
We have done our best to make it convenient to attend, although we
recognize that some conflicts are inevitable.
The meeting will be held at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Hyatt, on
14 through 18 November 1988. We will start at noon on the 14th and
end at noon on the 18th, so you can travel on those days.
Details are still being planned, and will be announced in about a month.
We are looking forward to an interesting, productive meeting.
Mark Pullen for Jack Schwartz and the staff of DARPA/ISTO
- -------
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂01-Aug-88 0846 RFN
TO: Prof. McCarthy
FROM: Rosemary
RE: Pat Simmons
will be in at noon today, August 1.
∂01-Aug-88 0930 JMC
Bjork re terminal
∂01-Aug-88 1135 TANAKAT%JPNTSCVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Aug 88 11:35:33 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Mon, 1 Aug 88 11:35:18 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 1 Aug 88 11:36:15 PDT
Received: by JPNTSCVM (Mailer X1.25) id 1305; Mon, 01 Aug 88 13:05:15 JST
Date: MON, 1 AUG 1988 13:02 JST
From: (Mr.) TANAKA Tomoyuki (alias Escher) <TANAKAT%JPNTSCVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: <jmc@sail.stanford.edu>
Dear Professor McCarthy,
I am a researcher at IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory. We
are designing a Lisp system for the TOP-1, a shared-memory
multiprocessor workstation under development at our lab. (Some of
the hardware aspects of the TOP-1 workstation have recently been
written up as a couple of articles. I'll be happy to send you
these if you're interested.)
We are trying to gather information about other concurrent Lisp
projects. Perhaps you noticed our "Bibliography on Multiprocessor
Lisp Systems and Applications", which was (accidentally)
published in the latest issue of Lisp Pointers.
Last week we had the pleasure of having Prof. Feigenbaum visit
our lab. He told us very briefly about the Qlisp system being
developed by Stanford Univ. and Lucid, and he also mentioned
another concurrent Lisp system that your group is working on.
Prof. Feigenbaum suggested that we contact you directly, and gave
us your e-mail address.
The aspects that we are most interested in are the following:
* shared-memory or message-passing model
* the underlying hardware
* the basic constructs related to concurrency
* based on Common Lisp or Scheme
* if based on Common Lisp, how multiple values, catch/throw,
etc. are dealt with
If there is a write-up of the Lisp system that your group is
working on, we'd very grateful if you could send us a copy.
Thank you very much, and best wishes.
(Mr.) TANAKA Tomoyuki (Tanaka is my family name.)
;;; IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory
;;; 5-19, Sanbancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102, Japan
;;;
;;; BITNET: tanakat@jpntscvm.bitnet
∂01-Aug-88 1612 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PI Meeting Announcement
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Aug 88 16:12:40 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA16577; Mon, 1 Aug 88 18:34:29 EDT
Resent-Message-Id: <8808012232.AA00552@sun45.darpa.mil>
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00552; Mon, 1 Aug 88 18:32:37 EDT
Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:47:34 EDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA11590; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:47:34 EDT
Posted-Date: Sat 30 Jul 88 19:44:41-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04354; Sat, 30 Jul 88 19:44:42 EDT
Date: Sat 30 Jul 88 19:44:41-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: PI Meeting Announcement
To: ISTO-PM@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <586309481.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Resent-Date: Mon 1 Aug 88 18:32:36-EDT
Resent-From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Resent-To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Please pass the following to all of your Principal Investigators:
Dear PI,
The purpose of this message is to announce that DARPA/ISTO is planning
a Principal Investigators Meeting, and all ISTO PIs are invited.
We have done our best to make it convenient to attend, although we
recognize that some conflicts are inevitable.
The meeting will be held at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Hyatt, on
14 through 18 November 1988. We will start at noon on the 14th and
end at noon on the 18th, so you can travel on those days.
Details are still being planned, and will be announced in about a month.
We are looking forward to an interesting, productive meeting.
Mark Pullen for Jack Schwartz and the staff of DARPA/ISTO
-------
-------
∂01-Aug-88 2147 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 August 1988
Previous Balance 12.42
Payment(s) 12.42 (check 7/12/88)
-------
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 4.00
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
∂02-Aug-88 1038 Qlisp-mailer Vacation
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Aug 88 10:38:09 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08901; Tue, 2 Aug 88 10:37:11 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 10:37:11 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808021737.AA08901@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Vacation
I will be on vacation beginning tomorrow, August 3, until August 16.
See you then.
-Dan
∂02-Aug-88 1159 BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Biodegradeable diapers
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Aug 88 11:59:11 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 11:54:45 PDT
From: Greg Byrd <Byrd@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Biodegradeable diapers
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1OM9#G@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12419278576.54.BYRD@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
We use a diaper service. They deliver clean diapers to the door
and pick up the dirty ones to be laundered. The dirty ones go in
a deoderized hamper on the back porch.
For convenience, we use disposable diapers when travelling.
So far, I find that the cloth diapers are just fine for everyday
use.
...Greg (who's not looking forward to a mile-high stack of dirty
diapers in my neighborhood!)
-------
∂02-Aug-88 1416 Qlisp-mailer Symbolics multiprocessor
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Aug 88 14:16:32 PDT
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 2 Aug 88 14:15:24-PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 14:18 PDT
From: rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Symbolics multiprocessor
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, binford@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880802211811.2.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
Apparently the people at Symbolics who were working on the
multiprocessor based on the Ivory chip are spinning off (these people
apparently include Jack Holloway (ex VP of hardware at Symbolics), Neil
Weste (who I talked to) and some others) into a separate company.
These worthies would like to
talk to the people at Stanford who may be interested in their product.
Some of them are coming out to this coast next week, and will be here
Tuesday aft, Wednesday morning and possibly Thursday morning, and would
like to set up a meeting. Wednesday morning (before or instead of the
regular noon Qlisp meeting) would probably be best, but if you can't
make it then, we could try some other time.
So, in conclusion, please let me know promptly if you can make it and
when, so that I can set the meeting up.
Igor
∂02-Aug-88 1714 Qlisp-mailer what's new about new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Aug 88 17:14:10 PDT
Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09977; Tue, 2 Aug 88 17:13:16 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Tue, 2 Aug 88 17:12:41 PDT
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA27950g; Tue, 2 Aug 88 17:08:26 PDT
Received: by bhopal id AA06957g; Tue, 2 Aug 88 17:10:06 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 17:10:06 PDT
From: Ron Goldman <edsel!arg@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8808030010.AA06957@bhopal.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: what's new about new-qlisp
A new version of new-qlisp with the first version of futures along with several
other new features was made available last month. Somewhat belatedly here's
the accompanying documentation:
1) Futures:
A version of (QLET 'EAGER ...) is now available. The QLET variables are bound
to a future, and if the value of the variable is needed in the body of the QLET
an explicit call to GET-FUTURE-VALUE must be done. Futures are now returned by
calls to QLAMBDA process closures and by SPAWN (see below). System functions
associated with futures currently include:
(GET-FUTURE-VALUE future) - the only way to get the value of a future
(REALIZE-FUTURE future value) - to assign a value to a future
(FUTUREP future) - to test if something is a future
(FUTURE-REALIZED-P future) - to test if a future has a value
As futures are integrated more fully into the compiler/runtime system, the need
for explicit calls to GET-FUTURE-VALUE will go away. (The astute observer will
notice that the various recent Qlisp papers use the function REALIZE-FUTURE to
get the value of a future. I expect that at some point soon this will indeed
be the case.)
If the form being computed by a process returns multiple-values, then the value
of the associated future returned by GET-FUTURE-VALUE will also be a multiple
value.
For the moment futures are not garbage collected.
2) QLAMBDA:
Several changes to QLAMBDA have been made over the last few months. First,
the syntax for QLAMBDA now requires a #' in the same manner that LAMBDA does.
So you'll need to change any QLAMBDA definitions to be #'(QLAMBDA ...).
Second, the body of a QLAMBDA is now always a critical region, regardless of
the value of the propositional parameter; only one caller at a time is allowed
in it. Previously if the propositional parameter was NIL, the QLAMBDA was
considered identical to a LAMBDA, but now the integrity principle of QLAMBDA
extends to the NIL (non-parallel) case. This is intended to make things
more consistent for the programmer.
Finally, note that the body of a QLAMBDA executes in the dynamic environment
of the caller with respect to catch frames and the binding of dynamic
variables. In the original Qlisp design a process closure (QLAMBDA T ...)
used the environment in which it was defined, while (QLAMBDA NIL ...) behaved
like a function defined with LAMBDA and used the environment of the caller.
The change to always use the caller's environment seems more consistent with
the functional nature of QLAMDA.
3) (SPAWN prop form)
If prop is NIL the process evaluating the SPAWN will also evaluate form. If
prop is non-NIL then a new process is created to evaluate form, and a future
is returned as the value of SPAWN.
4) (QWAIT form)
The construct (QWAIT form) waits for all processes spawned by the evaluation
of form, along with all calls to QLAMBDA process closures, to complete before
returning the value of form.
5) RELEASE-LOCK now takes the keyword :IGNORE-IF-NOT-OWNER, which does the
obvious thing.
∂03-Aug-88 0642 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu Mail archives
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 88 06:42:29 PDT
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id ab02019; 3 Aug 88 9:36 EDT
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 51; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:26:08 EDT
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from localhost (stdin) by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 13; Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:25:53 EDT
To: qphysics@ai.toronto.edu
Subject: Mail archives
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 12:05:49 EDT
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy@ai.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <88Aug3.092553edt.13@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Message-Id: <88Aug3.092608edt.51@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 09:26:02 EDT
The mail information server for QPhysics is now operational. We are running
the software developped for the CSNet information server, which is reasonably
mature. FTP access will be provided once our Internet connection is upgraded
You can query the server by sending mail to info@ai.utoronto.ca (or
info@ai.toronto.edu, the two domain forms are supposed to be completely
interchangeable). Prehistoric UUCP sites can use ...!uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!info
The easiest way to get help is to send "info" an empty mail message. You will
then get a reply of the form:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to info@ai.utoronto.ca
To get instructions about using the information server, send a message
containing the following lines to info@ai.utoronto.ca or equivalent.
Request: info
Topic: topics
Topic: userguide
Request: end
This would retrieve the data corresponding to the topics named "topics" and
"userguide" in the "info" part of the archives. In other words, data is
organized as a two-level hierarchy, and a Request:/Topic: pair uniquely
identifies a piece of archived data.
Case is ignored, and there can be many Request: lines before the final
Request: end. The user guide documents ways to ensure that messages sent
back are all below a certain threshold size, and other niceties.
Please report problems to postmaster@ai.utoronto.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a second example, sending a message with
Request: qphysics
Topic: help
would return
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The topics available under QPhysics are:
help you are reading it
members the current membership of the mailing list
For example, to get the list of members, send a message to info@ai.toronto.edu
or ...!uunet!ai.toronto.edu!info with the following two lines as the message
body:
request: qphysics
topic: members
Asking for "help" instead of "members" will give you this message. You can
put several topics in a row. Sending an empty message to info@ai.utoronto.ca
will give you pointers to what the server can accept.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additions to the archives will be announced as they are made.
∂03-Aug-88 1131 B.BILLL@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: Brian Wilson
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 88 11:31:28 PDT
Date: Wed 3 Aug 88 11:27:51-PDT
From: William Moore <B.BILLL@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Brian Wilson
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <gMD$8@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12419535823.23.B.BILLL@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Thanks for the info.
-Bill
-------
∂03-Aug-88 1133 VAL re: dinner
[In reply to message rcvd 02-Aug-88 17:11-PT.]
Yes, thank you.
∂03-Aug-88 1154 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Aug 88 11:54:26 PDT
Received: from labrea.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01882; Wed, 3 Aug 88 11:53:30 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Wed, 3 Aug 88 11:53:04 PDT
Received: from kolyma.lucid.com by edsel id AA01637g; Wed, 3 Aug 88 10:27:46 PDT
Received: by kolyma id AA11578g; Wed, 3 Aug 88 10:30:19 PDT
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 88 10:30:19 PDT
From: Carol Sexton <edsel!carol@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8808031730.AA11578@kolyma.lucid.com>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: new new-qlisp
I installed a new new-qlisp this morning on go4. Let
me know of any problems or bugs related to this lisp.
Since futures can now return multiple values,
the second argument to the function realize-future is
a list of values instead of a single value.
(REALIZE-FUTURE future list-of-values) - to assign values to a future
-Carol
∂04-Aug-88 0931 MPS telephone call
M. Bernstam (3-0527). Would like you to call.
Pat
∂05-Aug-88 0900 JMC
Bortz
∂05-Aug-88 1359 CLT house
We have a second appointment with Garner to
see a house at 5:45 (or as soon after as we can make it).
We'll need to pickup Timothy on the way since Hazel has
a driving lesson at 6.
∂05-Aug-88 1637 GLB report
I'd like to briefly report about recent work with Jussi, whenever it is
convenient for you.
Gianluigi
∂05-Aug-88 1649 harnad@Princeton.EDU BBS Call for Commentators: (1) motor control (2) tool use
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Aug 88 16:49:20 PDT
Received: from mind.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.67)
id AA13278; Fri, 5 Aug 88 19:26:51 EDT
Received: by mind (1.2/1.62)
id AA00354; Fri, 5 Aug 88 19:24:49 edt
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 19:24:49 edt
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8808052324.AA00354@mind>
To: fonetiks@uqam.BITNET
Subject: BBS Call for Commentators: (1) motor control (2) tool use
Below are the abstracts of 2 forthcoming target articles to appear in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), one on motor control (Gottlieb)
and one on tool use (Chevalier-Skolnikoff). To serve as a commentator
or to suggest other appropriate commentators, please send email to:
harnad@mind.princeton.edu or write to:
BBS, 20 Nassau Street, #240, Princeton NJ 08542 [tel: 609-921-7771]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract # 1.
Strategies for the Control of Voluntary Movements with One Degree of Freedom
Gerald L. Gottlieb (Physiology, Rush Medical Center),
Daniel M. Corcos (Physical Education, U. Illinois, Chicago),
Gyan C. Agarwal (Electr. Engineering & Computer Science, U. Illinois, Chicago)
A theory is presented to explain how people's accurate single-joint
movements are controlled. The theory applies to movements across
different distances, with different inertial loads, toward targets of
different widths over a wide range of experimentally manipulated
velocities. The theory is based on three propositions:
(1) Movements are planned according to "strategies," of which there are at
least two: a speed-insensitive (SI) and a speed-sensitive (SS) strategy.
(2) These strategies can be equated with sets of rules for performing
diverse movement tasks. The choice between (SI) and (SS) depends on
whether movement speed and/or movement time (and hence appropriate
muscle forces) must be constrained to meet task requirements.
(3) The electromyogram can be interpreted as a low-pass filtered
version of the controlling signal to motoneuron pools. This
controlling signal can be modelled as a rectangular excitation pulse
in which modulation occurs in either pulse amplitude or pulse width.
Movements with different distances and loads are controlled by the SI
strategy, which modulates pulse width. Movements in which speed must
be explicitly regulated are controlled by the SS strategy, which
modulates pulse amplitude. The distinction between the two movement
strategies reconciles many apparent conflicts in the motor control literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract #2:
Spontaneous tool use and sensorimotor intelligence in Cebus and other
monkeys and apes
Suzanne Chevalier Skolnikoff
Human Interaction Laboratory
Department of Psychiatry
University of California, San Fransisco
Spontaneous tool use and sensorimotor intelligence in Cebus
were observed to determine whether tool use is discovered
fortuitously and learned by trial and error or, rather, advanced
sensorimotor abilities (experimentation and insight) are critical in
its development and evolution. During 62 hours of observing captive
groups of cebus monkeys (a total of 12 animals), 38 series and 66 acts
of spontaneous tool use were recorded. Nine monkeys (75%) used tools;
14 kinds of tool use were observed. Of seven captive spider monkeys
observed for 21 hours, none used tools. Comparative observations of
sensorimotor intelligence were made using Piaget's model. The
sensorimotor basis of tool use was also analyzed. Cebus showed all six
of Piaget's levels of sensorimotor intelligence, whereas spider
monkeys showed only the first four stages. Besides these correlations
between tool use and advanced sensorimotor ability, 37 of the 38
tool-use series and 65 of the 66 individual acts involved Stage 5 and
6 sensorimotor mechanisms in Cebus; only one series involved Stage 3
fortuitous discovery and Stage 4 coordinations. This study and a
literature survey suggest that high tool-using propensity among
primates is based on advanced sensorimotor ability rather than
fortuitous discovery.
∂06-Aug-88 0212 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Kyoto Prize
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Aug 88 02:12:40 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id am13720; 6 Aug 88 5:07 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id aa14750; 6 Aug 88 4:42 EDT
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Sat, 6 Aug 88 17:18:04 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs02) with TCP; Sat, 6 Aug 88 17:16:02 JST
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 88 17:16:02 JST
From: Masahiko Sato <masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp>
Message-Id: <8808060816.AA06946@MECL.NTT.jp>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@ntt.jp
Cc: clt%sail.stanford.edu@ntt.jp
Subject: Kyoto Prize
Congratulations to you for receiving a Kyoto Prize.
The Inamori Foundations asked me to organize the workshop to be held on
November 12. The workshop will consist of a one hour lecture by you
and four 30 min. lectures by Japanese researchers.
I would like you to suggest me the title of the workhop. Tentatively,
I am thinking of "Logic in Artificial Intelligence" and "Artificial
Intelligence and Logic" as possible titles. Please let me know your
opinion.
Professor Ito told me that you and Carolyn will come to Sendai before
you go to Kyoto. Professor Ito and I hope to have an informal seminar
with you and Carolyn, and a public lecture by you. As I will have to
attend an international logic symposium to be held in Nagoya from
November 7, it will be most convenient for me if you could to Sendai
come in the week of Oct. 31 - Nov. 5. (Nov. 3 is a national holiday.)
masahiko
P.S. Professor Ito asked me to send his regards to you.
∂06-Aug-88 2206 Qlisp-mailer meeting with ex-Symbolics multiprocessor people
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Aug 88 22:06:44 PDT
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Sat 6 Aug 88 22:05:42-PDT
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 20:29 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: meeting with ex-Symbolics multiprocessor people
To: qlisp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, tom_binford@POLYA.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880806032923.2.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
The meeting will be held in MJH301 at 10am on Wednesday, August 10th.
See u there
Igor
∂07-Aug-88 1826 pratt@jeeves.stanford.edu expansion
Received: from jeeves.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Aug 88 18:25:56 PDT
Received: by jeeves.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA07330; Sun, 7 Aug 88 18:25:14 PDT
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 88 18:25:14 PDT
From: pratt@jeeves.stanford.edu (Vaughan Pratt)
Message-Id: <8808080125.AA07330@jeeves.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: expansion
Only when L1 is finite state. This is because the operation of
deleting the symbols not belonging to L1 is a homomorphism, and
homomorphisms preserve regularity.
-v
∂08-Aug-88 0600 JMC
take camera
∂08-Aug-88 0900 JMC
Montgomery
∂08-Aug-88 0925 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Bill Gates
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 88 09:25:18 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA02967; Mon, 8 Aug 88 09:23:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 88 09:23:53 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8808081623.AA02967@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: dek@sail, ulllman@score, cheriton@score, jlh@sonoma, latombe@coyote,
feigenbaum@sumex, wiederhold@score, jmc@sail
Cc: tajnai@score
Subject: Bill Gates
Jim Gibbons and I visited Bill Gates at Microsoft last Spring. I showed
him our CS Dept. brochure. He thumbed through it commenting on how many
"superstars of CS" we have here at Stanford. We invited him to come and
visit, and he said he would like to do that and meet some of our faculty.
I think there is some possibility of getting some Microsoft involvement
in supporting research here.
Gates is now suggesting that he visit Stanford on Thursday, December
1. Gibbons' office will be setting up a schedule and is requesting
that we in CS speak with him between 2 and 5 pm on that day. He will
be giving a talk at Stanford in the morning. (Don't know yet who his
host is for that talk.) I know that Gates would like to talk with
several of you---he's likely to want technical conversations. (Many
of you are "heroes" of his!) Please let me know if you can be
available that afternoon. Are there other faculty who should be
included?
-Nils
∂08-Aug-88 1352 qphysics-owner@neat.ai.toronto.edu access from bitnet.
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 88 13:52:16 PDT
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by RELAY.CS.NET id aa12067;
8 Aug 88 14:59 EDT
Received: by neat.ai.toronto.edu id 116; Mon, 8 Aug 88 14:48:55 EDT
Resent-From: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-To: qphysics-distribution@ai.toronto.edu
Resent-Sender: qphysics-owner@ai.toronto.edu
Received: from gpu.utcs.toronto.edu by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 113; Mon, 8 Aug 88 14:48:39 EDT
Received: from neat.ai.toronto.edu by gpu.utcs.toronto.edu via ETHER with SMTP id AA28304; Mon, 8 Aug 88 14:51:28 EDT
Received: from localhost (stdin) by neat.ai.toronto.edu with SMTP id 117; Mon, 8 Aug 88 14:47:18 EDT
To: qphysics@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: access from bitnet.
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 88 17:26:12 EDT
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy@ai.toronto.edu>
Message-Id: <88Aug8.144718edt.117@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Message-Id: <88Aug8.144855edt.116@neat.ai.toronto.edu>
Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Aug 88 14:48:54 EDT
This message is being sent by mailing to qphysics@utorgpu (a bitnet host).
People unfortunate enough to be on lobotomized bitnet/earn nodes can use that
address until their mailer is fixed to understand qphysics@ai.utoronto.ca or
qphysics@ai.toronto.edu.
Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy
AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
∂08-Aug-88 1426 MPS Phone
Professor R. Reddy would like you to call him.
His home phone is 412-621-2617.
Pat
∂08-Aug-88 2223 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Aug 88 22:23:17 PDT
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Tue 9 Aug 88 01:23:42-EDT
Date: Tue 9 Aug 88 01:23:41-EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12420965932.19.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
You know I know you know that the position paper for the JPL
was to be done in August, but could you reassure me a little? I have
a publisher breathing down my neck.
Thanks,
--Rich
-------
∂09-Aug-88 0635 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Re: comments
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Aug 88 06:35:34 PDT
Date: Tue 9 Aug 88 09:33:42-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: comments
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <cPD8w@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12421055139.34.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
John,
PLEASE provide some inputs forthe software section along the lines you have
suggested, ESPECIALLY on AI. Since the Soviet stuff is all in Bill's and
Judy's chapter now, you don't have to worry about it. But, we need your
inputs to respond to your comments! I need them, since I have been working
on that chapter and claim no particular expertise in the area.
Thanks,
Marjory
-------
∂09-Aug-88 1408 CLT panic postponed
The owner (who is the contractor) will be in the wilderness
for the next couple weeks, so the earliest they will entertain
an offer is 23 August. So we have time to negotiate with
Fuongs without loosing the other option.
∂09-Aug-88 1529 MPS books
Hi
Guess what? I got the box emptied and catalogued on the computer.
Only five will have to have more research done on them. There is
an empty box in my office now.......
Pat
∂09-Aug-88 1611 MPS
Prof.
I have gone to the photo shop to order more pics for you.
See you tomorrow.
Pat
∂10-Aug-88 0942 CLT status report - qlisp proposal
To: RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Here is Pullen's reply to my query.
Date: Tue 9 Aug 88 22:37:52-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: qlisp
To: CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Carolyn,
The decisions haven't been completed- but we are working on them.
One problem is that the budget is very tight this year. It isn't
clear that we will be able to fund all the things we would like to.
Mark
-------
∂10-Aug-88 1038 MPS phone call
Please call Dr. Foung, 3-6481
∂11-Aug-88 1437 MPS Party Time
Lee Herzenberg is having a potluck at her house with
live music on Sunday the 14th at 6:00 and would like
you to come.
Pat
∂11-Aug-88 1743 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: insurance
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 88 17:43:14 PDT
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 17:38:33 PDT
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: insurance
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <13Q#CU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12421700458.43.KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I tried to acknowledge that there are potential holes in my arguments;
you've raised another one or two. Also some of my statements are based
on intuitions I have which are hard to prove (or disprove). I think
the "slime" intuition may be partly based on a number of events regarding
the insurance industry which have been in the news in the past year or two,
such as the huge rises in the price of insurance and refusal of insurance
to various organizations. I realize these events are open to interpretation,
but I have mine.
Peter
-------
∂11-Aug-88 2231 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU MacIvory
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Aug 88 22:31:17 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00270; Thu, 11 Aug 88 22:29:51 PDT
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 88 22:29:51 PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808120529.AA00270@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,
weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: MacIvory
My spies say that Symbolics is looking for Beta-test sights for
MacIvory (the Symbolics VLSI Macintosh board). Should we check into
this?
Ramin
∂12-Aug-88 1010 SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: laptops
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 88 10:10:26 PDT
Date: Fri 12 Aug 88 10:07:07-PDT
From: Yoav Shoham <SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: laptops
To: allison@Shasta.Stanford.EDU
cc: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from "Dennis Allison <allison@shasta.stanford.edu>" of Fri 12 Aug 88 10:03:11-PDT
Message-ID: <12421880420.35.SHOHAM@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Good timing. I've just about decided to buy the Toshiba T1200H,
since it's thebest batery-operated machine. It's performance, unfortunately,
is only XT-like, but all the 286 and 386 machines require power. I'm negotiating
prices now. Seems like the basic machine will be around 2.2K, and if I add
an internal modem and extra 1meg memory, th eprice will approach 3K.
Are you interested? I'm thinking of placing an order today (since I'm leaving
next week on a trip).
Yo
-------
∂12-Aug-88 1329 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Re: Quotation from review
Received: from FAS.RI.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 88 13:29:19 PDT
Date: Friday, 12 August 1988 16:28:10 EDT
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
cc: plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Quotation from review
Message-ID: <1988.8.12.20.11.23.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <CPtH7@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
John,
What I need is the variant of your comment which includes
Maxwell's and Faraday's.
Raj
∂12-Aug-88 1348 Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu Re: Quotation from review
Received: from FAS.RI.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 88 13:48:20 PDT
Date: Friday, 12 August 1988 16:47:03 EDT
From: Raj.Reddy@fas.ri.cmu.edu
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
cc: plp@fas.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Quotation from review
Message-ID: <1988.8.12.20.46.15.Raj.Reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <CRr1r@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
John,
Yes, I would indeed appreciate getting a copy of the citation
by email. Thanks!
Raj
∂12-Aug-88 1552 allison@shasta.stanford.edu Re: laptops
Received: from shasta.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Aug 88 15:52:14 PDT
Received: by shasta.stanford.edu; Fri, 12 Aug 88 15:52:09 PDT
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 88 15:52:09 PDT
From: Dennis Allison <allison@shasta.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: laptops
To: SHOHAM@score.stanford.edu, allison@shasta.stanford.edu
Cc: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
I'm interested in a Toshiba 3100/20. The best price I've found is
in the neighborhood of $2900 though it varies depending upon who you
talk to and such. All the discount places will give you about the
same price -- actually they'll give you the same price as the guy
down the street provided you have a paper quote. Why don't you ask
your guy what his best price would be for a joint deal.
Also, did you talk with lundstron@sierra. He has a desire for a
similar machine.
-dra
∂12-Aug-88 1554 MPS Books
I have your books complete and ready to take home.
Only those in the box. They are on the table by
my computer.
Today there is a TGIF at 4:00. I will be going to
it. See you on Monday
Have a good weekend.
Pat
∂13-Aug-88 1000 JMC
return Rita's papers
∂14-Aug-88 0800 JMC
thomason
∂14-Aug-88 1058 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Aug 88 10:58:15 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Sun, 14 Aug 88 10:58:14 PDT
Date: Sun 14 Aug 88 10:58:13-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: SSP Forum
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <587584693.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <GRatk@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
What would you like to give a presentation on? On Monday, I leave for the
East Coast for two weeks. Would you care to meet to talk about this when I
return?
reid
-------
∂14-Aug-88 1100 JMC
See Kyoto letter
∂14-Aug-88 1656 loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu Re: linguistic usage
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Aug 88 16:56:16 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Sun, 14 Aug 88 16:54:49 PDT
Received: by loire.. (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA11832; Sun, 14 Aug 88 14:50:36 PDT
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 14:50:36 PDT
From: Terry Winograd <loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8808142150.AA11832@loire..>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: linguistic usage
This depends on the style sheet of the publication. I generally use
double quotes unless it is a text in which a great many such things will appear,
in which case italics look better.
--t
∂14-Aug-88 2058 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Aug 88 20:58:08 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Sun, 14 Aug 88 20:58:07 PDT
Date: Sun 14 Aug 88 20:58:06-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: SSP Forum
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <587620686.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <13SpWg@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
That seems like an excellent topic. I will contact you when I return.
reid
-------
∂15-Aug-88 0704 ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 07:04:50 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Mon, 15 Aug 88 07:04:16 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 15 Aug 88 07:05:16 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 09:02 CDT
To: <jmc@sail.stanford.edu>
From: ANDERSJ%ccm.UManitoba.CA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Subject: GREETINGS
Professor McCarthy;
As a longtime admirer of you and your work, I just wanted to
let you know what an honor it is to work in the same field as a man
who has worked so long and hard for the advancement of science.
Sincerely,
John Anderson
Dept. of Comp. Sci.
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
∂15-Aug-88 0949 C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Garbage Mounds: Employment For Archaeologists
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 09:49:35 PDT
Date: Mon 15 Aug 88 09:47:02-PDT
From: George Cole <C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Garbage Mounds: Employment For Archaeologists
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12422663198.21.C.COLE@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
I mentioned the recent SU-ETC discussions about garbage mounds and older
civilizations to my favorite archaeologist (also fiancee). She pointed out that
the largest proportion of the average "tell" was created when the city burned
down or was conquered and razed. Then the locals levelled the rubble and
re-built. So the accretion can't be presumed to be incremental from accumulated
garbage.
We then mused on several locations we'd like to see so treated (Lusk,
Wyoming, is one) -- and she added that modern garbage sites such as the Palo
Alto waste hill will provide work for generations of future archaeologists.
George
-------
∂15-Aug-88 1100 JMC
expenses
∂15-Aug-88 1100 JMC
Bortz
∂15-Aug-88 1241 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu RE: comments
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 12:41:28 PDT
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 21:14 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: comments
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: UACCIT::IN%"JMC@sail.stanford.edu"
John:
Thanks for the comments. Glad to have them.
∂15-Aug-88 1254 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu draft Soviet chapter
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 12:54:43 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 10:11 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: draft Soviet chapter
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
FYI:
The July 29-dated Soviet chapter in the full draft just sent to you by
Marjory has now been superceded by an Aug 11-dated revision from McHenry
and Thornton. Nevertheless, corrections, comments, etc. on the version
you have are still welcome. I will forward the revised chapter to anyone
who would like to work on it. It is our longest chapter.
∂15-Aug-88 1306 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu gneral comments re recently mailed draft
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 13:06:29 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 10:25 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: gneral comments re recently mailed draft
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, AAIS::JUDY, THORNTON
By now, you should have received the current draft from Marjory.
On the positive side, the committee has done a remarkable job of putting
together so much good material in such a short time. We have literally put
together the equivalent of an entire book, with very extensive coverage, in
3 meetings over roughly 6-8 months. Almost all of this work has been done by
about 10-12 of our 18 members (mostly by the people under 50).
We have 2 general problems:
The first is that we are so short of time (and this is not a matter of bad
planning, but more a function of the enormity of our task and the raw time
it has taken our otherwise very busy group to work its way this far up the
learning curve) that I am extremely worried about the packaging. We are
greatly in need of major editing. The whole report so far comes across as a
good first draft. There are clear seams showing boundaries between the work
of different people in the different chapters, first draft quality writing,
poor transition and linkage paragraphs, too much fat, etc. etc. Given our
prospective audiences, it is extremely important that we have a well
packaged and readable report. Right now, this is more important than the
missing pieces (e.g., our "target countries" chapter only seriously covers
the USSR) because the missing pieces should be discussed away in various
places as coming under our resource limitations (e.g., time and expertise
only permitted a serious look at the USSR, clearly the most important of
these countries, but that several others should be considered for a number
of good reasons in any follow up work). In my mind, our biggest problem right
now is that we look like a bloated pasting together of first draft chunks
written by different people with different ideas of what constitutes
"sufficient detail" (which, of course, is exactly what we are).
The second problem is that there is a heavy weighting towards description and
background and technological assessment versus conclusions. We're going
to have gigantic middle chapters and relatively tiny issues and conclusions
chapters. This is not as big a problem as the first for two reasons. One is
that the committee as a whole has not come far enough up the learning curve
to think about and become comfortable with a more extensive set of
conclusions. Not surprising. Circumstances were such that we had little
choice but to spend only a small fraction of our time discussing
conclusions. The other reason is that both State and NAS are very shy about
having a controversial report. Our original task statement calls for a
fairly descriptive and assessive report. In some ways it, and Marjorie and
Allen as well, have been very nervous and discouraging about being too bold
and direct in explicitly addressing export control issues. I understand this
and am prepared to respect their wishes.
A lesser general problem is how extensive should our bibliography be?
For our intended audiences, we should clearly favor English-language, fairly
readily obtainable sources which provide more extensive discussions and
reference lists. That could still be quite a large number. Let Marjory know
what references you want to include.
I'd like to once again thank all of you who have contributed your time and
thoughts to our committee's effort.
∂15-Aug-88 1306 Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM AAAI funding for CLOS workshop
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 13:06:43 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 15 AUG 88 12:59:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 12:58 PDT
From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: AAAI funding for CLOS workshop
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.edu
Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-3.text.newest
Message-ID: <19880815195809.9.GREGOR@PORTNOY.parc.xerox.com>
Line-fold: no
We are organizing a CLOS workshop at PARC October 3rd and 4th. Danny is
working on this with me, but I am doing most of the work. The offical
name of the workshop is the CLOS Users and Implementors workshop.
Now that CLOS is somewhat official, we want to encourage the development
of a larger CLOS community. It is important that the technical
leadership of the CLOS community expand beyond the 6 of us who were
primarily responsible for its creation. There are a lot of people using
CLOS to do some pretty interesting stuff. A meeting dedicated to
talking about CLOS issues should be exciting, and should start getting
these people communicating with one another. A preliminary list of
topics we hope to discuss includes:
Applications
Programming Techniques
Implementation
Programming Environment Tools
Extensions of CLOS
Techniques for Converting to CLOS
Meta Object Techniques and Theory
Critiques
We were planning on charging everyone a registration fee, but it
occurred to me that this was just the sort of thing AAAI funded. My
preliminary cost estimate is about $80 per person, and we expect about
60 people. So, for about 5k we could fund the whole thing and not
charge anyone attending a registration fee.
What do you think?
Gregor
-------
∂15-Aug-88 1755 decwrl!pyramid!pyrps5.pyramid.com!barry@labrea.stanford.edu Re: unicycle
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 17:55:14 PDT
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Mon, 15 Aug 88 17:00:53 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA23946; Mon, 15 Aug 88 17:01:25 PDT
Received: from pyrps5.pyramid.com (pyrps5) by pyramid.pyramid.com (5.51/OSx4.4-880707)
id AA26096; Mon, 15 Aug 88 15:43:41 PDT
Received: by pyrps5.pyramid.com (5.51/OSx4.0-870424)
id AA09057; Mon, 15 Aug 88 15:42:44 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 15:42:44 PDT
From: barry@pyrps5.pyramid.com (Barry Bakalor)
Message-Id: <8808152242.AA09057@pyrps5.pyramid.com>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: unicycle
> for sale. Flat tire. Best offer.
Can you provide any more information?
Other than the flat, is it in good condition?
Is the seat OK, or badly messed up from too many falls?
Is it a normal low unicycle, or a tall "giraffe"?
Is the wheel size (diameter) 20", 24", or what?
Is it a Schwinn, Matthews, Sears, or some other known brand?
Can I come see it?
-m------- Barry Bakalor, Senior Software Engineer/Pyramid Technology
---mmm----- P.O. Box 7295, Mountain View, CA 94039 415-965-7200x3040
-----mmmmm--- 1152 Timberpine Court, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 408-247-3123
-------mmmmmmm- {allegra,cmcl2,decwrl,hplabs,ut-sally,utzoo}!pyramid!barry
∂15-Aug-88 1824 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU FYI (From RISKS digest)
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Aug 88 18:24:00 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00438; Mon, 15 Aug 88 18:22:30 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 18:22:30 PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808160122.AA00438@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: FYI (From RISKS digest)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 08:53:39 PDT
>From: jon@june.cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky)
Subject: Orbit 100,000 self-guided "brilliant" weapons, Reagan advised
The following story appeared in THE SEATTLE TIMES, Aug 9 1988, p. A3:
SDI OFFICIALS URGE 'PEBBLES' OVER 'ROCKS' by Dan Stober, Knight-Ridder News
A dozen high-ranking "Star Wars" officials met privately with President Reagan
two weeks ago to gain his backing for a new weapons idea: swarms of five-pound
rockets, known as "brilliant pebbles," that would orbit Earth and decide on
their own to attack Soviet missiles.
The rockets, once launched, would not require a command from the ground to
attack.
"It's effectively a shield over the planet, consisting of these things, and if
anything pierces the shield that doesn't come from an allowed launch point
... it gets knocked off," said Bruce McWilliams, who headed a lab team that
developed the optical sensors for "brilliant pebbles."
It would take 100,000 such rockets to defend against the next generation of
Soviet missiles, a Livermore study concluded.
...(the idea) was advanced by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory...
the classified White House briefing was given by Livermore physicist Lowell
Wood, a protege of the controverial Edward Teller.
- Jonathan Jacky, University of Washington
------------------------------
End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 7.33
∂16-Aug-88 1000 JMC
Elliott
∂16-Aug-88 1109 MPS phone call
Matt at Union Bank wants you to call him.
859-1225
He called at 10:00 today.
Pat
∂16-Aug-88 1215 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Please....
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Aug 88 12:15:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 10:45 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: Please....
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
try to get your marked-up pages, more general comments etc. back
to Marjory no later than the end of this week. Send them to her via
express mail, e-mail or even phone them in. thank you.
∂16-Aug-88 1748 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU Re: lunch
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Aug 88 17:48:04 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 16 Aug 88 17:47:30 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 16 Aug 88 17:48:09 PDT
Date: 16 Aug 88 17:01 PST
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: lunch
Date: 16 August 1988, 17:00:48 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: lunch
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 08/12/88 20:35
Dear John,
How about Thursday at noon at the Faculty Club. I will have my
Sec make a reservation.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂17-Aug-88 0900 JMC
real estate people
∂17-Aug-88 0900 JMC
cate
∂17-Aug-88 1012 MPS Tire
Sounds good, but I need a square tire. Do you have
any?
∂17-Aug-88 1141 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU re: lunch
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 88 11:41:54 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 17 Aug 88 11:41:20 PDT
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 17 Aug 88 11:42:21 PDT
Date: 17 Aug 88 11:40 PST
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: lunch
Date: 17 August 1988, 11:39:11 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: re: lunch
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 08/16/88 17:50
Dear John,
HOw about next Tuesday at 12:30pm. I will make reservation
Greetings,
Elliott
∂17-Aug-88 1217 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: Traffic on Junipero Serra; EIR hearing Aug 18
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 88 12:17:38 PDT
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 12:13:48 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Traffic on Junipero Serra; EIR hearing Aug 18
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <GTE2p@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12423214203.53.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
For one of the rare times, I agree with you. One of the reasons I have
decided to leave California is that I cannot tolerate the anti-growth
sentiment of this area and the housing crisis. I am losing my house
imminently due to the selfishness of my estranged wife, and I'll never
be able to buy another one here.
Those inherited-wealth pseudo-liberals (who often do feel-good things like
vote for Jessie Jackson) are far more reactionary and right-wing than the
most staunch Reaganite. In some ways, these wolves in sheeps clothing are
more dangerous than the nutsos like Pat Robertson.
-------
∂17-Aug-88 2004 P.PR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU re: A question about vice presidential nominations
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Aug 88 20:03:59 PDT
Date: Wed 17 Aug 88 20:01:14-PDT
From: Pratheep Balasingam <P.PR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: A question about vice presidential nominations
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <STymy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12423299296.74.P.PR@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Interesting -> I guess I'll read Baker's column.
-------
∂18-Aug-88 0224 GLB
This is a report on my recent work about/through EKL together with Jussi.
I have now finished the functional interpretation of Infinite Ramsey
Theorem and implemented a significant sample of it in EKL
(you can find it in the file RAMSEY.NCI[EKL,SYS]).
This is a short description of the No Counterexample Interpretation and
of the conclusions reached about Ramsey Theorem.
Given a formula
(1) ∀x.∃y.∀z.∃w.A(x,y,z,w)
consider the Herbrand form
(2) ∃y.∃w.A(x,y,z[y],w)
equivalent to (1) in an extended system. Think of a specific term x and
a specific function z[y] as attempts to falsify (2)---equivalently,
as Skolem functions for the negation of (1).
Now if (1) is valid in N there will be functionals Y and W that turn any
such attempt into a failure---i.e., (3) is true for any choice of x and z:
(3) A(x,Y(x,z),z[Y(x,z)],W(x,z))
Moreover, if we have a proof in PA of (1), then we can build Y and W
using explicit definitions and primitive recursion according to the proof.
----------
Now if we have the statement that a set A is infinite (as in the case
of Ramsey Theorem)
(4) ......|- ∀n.∃y.yεA ∧ y>n
then the interpretation
(5) ......|- Y(...,n)εA' ∧ Y(...,n)>n
gives a functional Y(...,n) and we can iterate Y to obtain a finite set
of elements of A':
(6) v0 = Y(...,0), ..., vn+1 = Y(...,vn)
Thus we can hope to obtain, say, the Finite Ramsey Theorem from the
Infinite version and explicit bounds for the Finite versions.
---------
Do we obtain such bounds?
The answer for upper bounds is:
We obtain a lot of bounds, depending on certain parameters (the arguments
of Y other than from n) but we cannot obtain a unique upper bound, by Goedel
Incompleteness. The argument is as follows: suppose Y was a type 1 function,
then (6) would give primitive recursive bounds also for large sets, in
the sense of Paris Harrington and this is impossible.
Thus Y must be a type 2 functional and the arguments other than n come from
the definition of the Ramsey set (the assumptions .... in (4) and (5) ).
Also, certain choices of these parameters will make (5) trivially true
(because .... are false) and the construction (6) doesn't work.
Thus we must study the conditions for Non Triviality of the solutions.
This study gives a better understanding of the relations between
the Finite and the Infinite Ramsey Theorem.
Lower bounds:
if we search for solutions among functions that have ``too small'' domain,
then the solutions will always be trivial. The following problem is open:
What is the smallest domain of the parameters for which there is
a nontrivial solution satisfying the Finite Ramsey Theorem?
---------
My claim is that there is room here for genuine mathematical research
related to the problem of bounds for Ramsey theorem. Roughly, this
corresponds to the question:
How much can we improve the lower bounds
without changing the proof in an essential way?
One should not underestimate the significance of this for Automatic
Theorem Proving. Indeed, even the most difficult automatic proof
is not, as such, an answer to the question:
What have we learnt from the automatic proof that we didn't know
already?
Our answer is:
EVERY PROOF COMES WITH AN ENVIRONMENT OF IMPLICIT INFORMATION.
EKL CAN RECYCLE SOME IMPLICIT INFORMATION AND EXPRESS IT IN THE
FORM OF FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION.
EXTENSIVE APPLICATION OF FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION REQUIRES
COMPUTER AID: THE PROCESS IS SIMPLY TOO LONG TO BE DONE BY HAND.
There is room for extensive research here: Girard's unwinding of
the topological proof of van der Waerden theorem is a brilliant
example of a research that should have been done by computer.
Other theorems of combinatorics are well suited for this kind
of exercise, and I plan to look at some other example in the fall.
One should point out that Ramsey Theorem or ven der Waerden are relatively
simple results, yet it took 2 quarters in Kreisel's seminar to present
Girard's transformation (done by pencil and paper). A detailed
interpretation of a more complex proof by pencil and paper may be
simply unfeasible. Here we have a case where the technology of
Mechanical Proof Checkers could make certain mathematical research possible.
EKL is an extremely interesting device and some of its features are very
attractive and extremely fashionable, e.g. in the area of linear and relevance
logic. There is no need for me to go into this: Jussi is better than me
even as a salesperson---assuming that he is still interested in selling EKL.
--------
About my work in EKL: I have put many files in the directory [EKL,SYS],
several finished projects and some unfinished. An index of the files
is contained in the file DOC[EKL,SYS]. If you look at it, you will see
how extensively EKL has been used and tested.
I'd like to point out that all decisions about the EKL project
have been taken in the last years under Jussi's supervision.
When I come back, there may be time to continue some unfinished project.
--------
I am going to Italy at the end of the week. I will be at the
Logic Colloquium 1988 and give a short talk on the above topics.
I will be back sometimes in the fall, to do my oral exams and
to finish my dissertation.
I want to thank you for your continued support thoughout these years.
I am grateful for that---and for having allowed the largest freedom
of choice in the topic of my own research.
Gianluigi.
∂18-Aug-88 1230 D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Reed Irvine
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 88 12:29:57 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Aug 88 12:27:22-PDT
From: Dave Brock <D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Reed Irvine
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1STy0v@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12423478816.172.D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry, but I didn't quite follow the
Galileo reference, so please forgive me if I am misinterpreting
you, but it seems to me that you question whether I am having a
knee-jerk reaction to Irvine, while you present only allegations
and weak evidence supporting Irvine. (I consider Irvine's saying
that staffers agreed with him, and the quote
-------
∂18-Aug-88 1239 D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU re: Reed Irvine
Received: from LEAR.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 88 12:39:07 PDT
Date: Thu 18 Aug 88 12:36:31-PDT
From: Dave Brock <D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: re: Reed Irvine
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1STy0v@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12423480481.172.D.DAVEB@LEAR.STANFORD.EDU>
Sorry about that last message. I accidentally sent while in the
midst of correcting. Anyway, I was about to "say" that I hardly
believe that a group of staffers (how were they picked) would
necessarily be unbiased, just as I don't think you'd take as
evidence of Bakshi's innocence that many of my friends didn't
see it as Irvine did. You offer only innuendo against Bakshi.
I saw Bakshi on either 60 minutes or 48 hours (I think), and if
that's the source of the Bakshi quote about doing things on kids'
TV, it is quite out of context.
So much for the semantics. The question now is, have I seen the
clip? I must say that I really don't know. I watch Mighty Mouse
farily regularly (no wise cracks), and don't remember the scene.
This tells me that either a) I didn't see the clip, or b) I saw
the clip and it didn't impress me as a drug ritual (I would've
remembered *that*).
--DaveB
-------
∂18-Aug-88 1422 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU beta testing a MacIvory
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 88 14:21:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 10:56 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: beta testing a MacIvory
To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, weening@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU, rdz@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880818175651.8.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
I have talked to Carl White, and he said that he sent me a β-test
agreement. Apparently, all that will be required of us is a letter of
interest (NOT anything resembling a commitment) in the real thing, and
also making the machine available to the
other possible Stanford customers. The machine they would be shipping is
a full-boat model with a big (1024x1024) screen, tape drive, 18MB of
memory, and god knows what else. This would be arriving by the end of
October at the latest.
If there aren't any objections, I will compose a letter and sign the
agreement as soon as I get it (should be today or tomorrow).
Igor.
∂18-Aug-88 1721 Qlisp-mailer new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 88 17:20:56 PDT
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09361; Thu, 18 Aug 88 17:19:23 PDT
Received: from kolyma ([192.9.200.9]) by heavens-gate id AA04205g; Thu, 18 Aug 88 16:20:48 PST
Received: by kolyma id AA03186g; Thu, 18 Aug 88 17:21:07 PDT
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 17:21:07 PDT
From: Carol Sexton <carol@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8808190021.AA03186@kolyma>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp
I've installed a new new-qlisp on go4. In this lisp,
if a future has been realized, gc will replace the future
with the future's value unless the future is serving
as a placeholder for multiple values.
Let me know of any problems you encounter using this lisp.
Carol
∂18-Aug-88 2158 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu Re: The Left's Big Idea
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 18 Aug 88 21:58:01 PDT
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA00667; Thu, 18 Aug 88 21:56:21 PDT
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 88 21:56:21 PDT
From: ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Message-Id: <8808190456.AA00667@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: The Left's Big Idea
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <qSs8Y@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
You may be interested in a Letter to the Editor in the May/June issue
of "Tikkun" by David Horowitz condemning the New Left, accompanied by
a response from leftists Todd Gitlin and Michael Kazin.
Also of interest in the same issue is a "communitarian" critique of
liberalism by Joel Feinberg, and response by Christopher Lasch.
Daniel
∂19-Aug-88 0711 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu test message
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 07:11:08 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 06:42 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: test message
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
John:
Please let me know if you get this in good shape. My attempt to send you
the 3 parts of the revised Soviet chapter was rejected.
∂19-Aug-88 1042 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt update?
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 10:41:47 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 09:52 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt update?
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
From: UACCIT::IN%"JMC@sail.stanford.edu" "John McCarthy" 19-AUG-1988 09:19
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subj: re: test message
Return-path: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by rvax.ccit.arizona.edu via TCP; Fri Aug 19
08:56 MST
Date: 19 Aug 88 0856 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: re: test message
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Message-ID: <oUWff@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message sent Fri, 19 Aug 88 06:42 MST.]
I got it. I lose on those outgoing messages that go to bitnet addresses.
∂19-Aug-88 1052 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu re: The Left's Big Idea
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 10:52:04 PDT
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA13022; Fri, 19 Aug 88 10:50:23 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 10:50:23 PDT
From: ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Message-Id: <8808191750.AA13022@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: The Left's Big Idea
I'd be delighted. Any way to drop them off to you?
Daniel
∂19-Aug-88 1234 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu RE: re: Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 12:34:23 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 11:37 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: re: Does this mean you got the test message or the Soviet chapt
update?
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: UACCIT::IN%"JMC@sail.stanford.edu"
John: I'll try to send you the revised chapter again. Part 3 is the one
with the most changes. Feel free to deal directly with McHenry on comments.
∂19-Aug-88 1322 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Let Me Be the First...
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 13:22:02 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA14673; Fri, 19 Aug 88 13:21:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 13:21:02 PDT
From: Eric J. Berglund <berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808192021.AA14673@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Let Me Be the First...
To predict that you'll catch hell for the phrase "poor black women"
in your article on technological solutions to moral problems.
"Poor women" would have been sufficient.
I'm glad you raised this one: I hope it gets lots of discussion.
Seems so obviously right to allow abortion on demand, but not to
allow any killing. Seems less obvious but also true that the pro-life
people should be responsible for all these nascent lives that must
be saved.
--Eric
∂19-Aug-88 1409 MPS
Gary Chapman returned your call
∂19-Aug-88 1417 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu IBM equipment
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 14:17:35 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA26006; Fri, 19 Aug 88 14:16:55 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 14:16:55 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8808192116.AA26006@athena.stanford.edu>
To: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu
Cc: nilsson@score, jmc@sail
In-Reply-To: Tom Binford's message of Fri, 19 Aug 88 12:51:39 PDT <8808191951.AA14255@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
Subject: IBM equipment
Tom,
Yesterday John McCarthy came into my office and asked if I knew of
anyone who could use an extra RT that he now has. I don't know whether
IBM loaned or gave him the machine, but we're trying to find out. If
you were to take it, it might not make any difference.
Why don't you contact John and get the specs - I assume it could be
up-graded at less expense than acquiring a new one.
gw
∂19-Aug-88 1418 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu [binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu: IBM equipment]
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 14:18:36 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA26010; Fri, 19 Aug 88 14:18:04 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 14:18:04 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8808192118.AA26010@athena.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: [binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu: IBM equipment]
this is the msg from Binford that I responded to.
gw
Return-Path: <@Score.stanford.edu:binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 12:51:39 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
To: nilsson@score
Subject: IBM equipment
Nils
This is a different equipment request. I am
interested in getting a big IBM RT to run their
symbolic math system for our research. Do you
have any contact to ask? In the past, they made
some RTs available.
Tom
∂19-Aug-88 1521 Mailer Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 15:21:12 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 15:13:27 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <oUZag@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12423771194.46.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
JMC's argument is one I've puzzled over for a while too.
Let's face it, nobody really relishes the idea of intentionally
destroying (I think "killing" is too inaccurate and emotion-
charged) a fetus; it's just that at present the fetus'
destruction is the inevitable side-effect of an abortion.
However, the fetus' destruction eliminates a whole class of moral
problems that are even more horrible.
It is, I think, safe to say that a woman who has aborted a
fetus is ready, willing, and eager to surrender all claims and
responsibility for it. There are two reasons I can think of for
voluntary abortion: (1) the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and
(2) the woman doesn't want a baby. Most women who abort, I
suspect, have both reasons. The mechanism of adoption exists for
those who only have one reason -- a woman who doesn't want a baby
and is relatively unconcerned about pregnancy can carry to term
and put the baby up for adoption, while a woman who wants a baby
but does not want to be pregant can adopt.
I don't think that we as a society need to sympathize or
cooperate with a woman who becomes pregnant, aborts because she
doesn't want to be pregnant, but still wants the baby. An
exception can be made if it is medically necessary, but in
general pregnancy should be considered the necessary and suitable
price to pay for the satisfaction of reproducing your own genes.
There are entirely too many babies in this world to encourage
pregnancy-less reproduction for convenience.
Fetuses are destroyed all the time, in all species; it's
called miscarriage and is one of nature's most important means of
quality control since it disposes of many forms of defective
fetuses. I read someplace that most human pregnancies terminate
in miscarriage without the woman ever being aware that she was
pregnant.
So, this raises several questions including some overlooked
by JMC:
1) should artificial means be introduced to preserve fetuses
which would otherwise have miscarried?
2) if aborted fetuses must be preserved, who will pay for the
costs of bringing the fetus to term and raising it?
3) would this introduce a new form of surrogacy in which a woman
gets pregnant, aborts, and sells the bottled baby? Assuming
a three-month cycle (impregnation, development, and recovery)
this suggests that a woman could produce four bottle-babies a
year.
4) what do you do about the pregnancy-less reproduction noted
about (she aborts but wants to keep the bottle-baby). Who
will pay the medical costs? Would this create two classes of
people, the rich who reproduce without pregnancy and the poor
who reproduce with pregnancy? Would this carry us further
down the line of eugenics? [Perhaps not a bad idea, since
although eugenics would produce superior human beings in the
short term, in the long term it'll produce a race vulnerable
to epidemics that those that reproduce randomly will be
immune to. What a great way to ensure periodic
redistribution of wealth!]
All of these are really horrible questions. Perhaps
research into preserving an aborted fetus should be terminated,
on the grounds that it is likely to succeed in developing the
technique and our society isn't ready to deal with the attached
moral problems yet.
-- Mark --
-------
∂19-Aug-88 1708 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Aug 88 17:07:59 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Fri, 19 Aug 88 17:07:25 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 17:07:25 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <oUZag@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Cc:
Works for me. My personal definition starts at the beginning of CNS
development, which is about six weeks into the term. Undoubtably, some
will see this as an unwarrented technological intrusion, but the same
folks don't seem to be complaining about respirators and coma victims...
--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "There is no distinctly American criminal class
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | except Congress." -- Mark Twain
∂20-Aug-88 1021 Mailer failed mail returned
The following message has expired without successful delivery to recipient(s):
yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.NTA.NO
------- Begin undelivered message: -------
17-Aug-88 1157 JMC re: Your travel arrangement to China?
To: yang%vax.runit.unit.uninett@TOR.NTA.NO
[In reply to message sent 15 Jun 88 10:02 +0100.]
To what address do I mail you my expenses for the Guangzhou trip?
------- End undelivered message -------
∂20-Aug-88 1119 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Trillion dollar deficit
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 88 11:19:37 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 20 Aug 88 08:54:51 PDT
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 88 08:54:51 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Trillion dollar deficit
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
Thanks, JMC. It's great to be back!
I guess I just assumed the C.E.O of B of A would be an economic
conservative. You said he's "politically liberal". I guess that
implies that despite his economic beliefs, he's mostly out to
get Reagan. Is that what you meant?
What about Hotelly at the Hoover?
Yes, unemployment and inflation look good, but my understanding
is that it is possible to achieve these things through the unsound
policy of unlimited borrowing. Is that incorrect?
-helen
∂20-Aug-88 1229 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Trillion dollar deficit
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 88 12:29:53 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Sat, 20 Aug 88 12:29:06 PDT
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 88 12:29:06 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Trillion dollar deficit
Cc: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
If I understand correctly, "increased price of imports" is the
same as inflation, to the extent that imports account for a large
proportion of the things we buy, and my understanding is that they
do. The revival of U.S. industries to compete with high-priced
foreign stuff may or may not be a boon, depending on whether it is
cost-free (doesn't add to inflation) and provides goods that are
not inferior (by no means certain).
As for the so-called tax cuts, John, did your taxes actually go down
after the Reagan reforms? Mine went up, as did my father's (he's no
wealthy baron). That's not only in absolute terms, but rate-wise.
-helen
∂20-Aug-88 1831 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU IBM RT
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Aug 88 18:31:41 PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA14890; Sat, 20 Aug 88 18:25:48 PDT
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 88 18:25:48 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8808210125.AA14890@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: IBM RT
John
George Wheaton told me that you wanted to get
rid of an IBM RT. I want one that is large
enough. I don't know now what is large enough
but I will find out. I want to run IBM symbolic
manipulation software.
How big is your machine?
Regards
Tom Binford
∂21-Aug-88 1300 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu interview from FRG friend
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 88 13:00:23 PDT
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 88 11:43 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: interview from FRG friend
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
thank you.
Your friend's comments are very consistent with similar information
we've been seeing for years. I tried to make some fairly strong statements
myself along these lines to our committee, but the group as a whole was
reluctant to go along with it. A pity you weren't at our July meeting.
I've passed your information to Marjorie and Bill (the principal author
of the Soviet chapter). I'll get back to them to see what they say.
Thanks again, John.
∂21-Aug-88 1908 MAILER-DAEMON@csli.Stanford.EDU Returned mail: Cannot send message for 1 day
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 88 19:08:52 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Sun, 21 Aug 88 19:08:44 PDT
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 88 19:08:44 PDT
From: MAILER-DAEMON@csli.Stanford.EDU (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 1 day
To: <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 score: Host is unreachable
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Sat, 20 Aug 88 18:13:50 PDT
Message-Id: <CVv0W@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 20 Aug 88 1812 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Grice
To: suppes@CSLI.Stanford.EDU
I hereby confirm my acceptance of your offer of Grice references.
∂21-Aug-88 1943 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of July computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 88 19:43:40 PDT
Date: Sat 20 Aug 88 14:39:06-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of July computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12424027087.11.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for July.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 238.70 196.07 ***.** 15.66 5.00 2538.32
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 .00 .00 31.54 .00 5.00 36.54
jmc LABREA 2-DMA705 100 .00 .00 73.38 .00 5.00 78.38
Total: 238.70 196.07 ***.** 15.66 15.00 2653.24
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA705 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂21-Aug-88 2224 andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU Measurement error in the greenhouse theory data
Received: from cayuga.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Aug 88 22:24:12 PDT
Received: by cayuga.Stanford.EDU (5.51/inc-1.01)
id AA14982; Sun, 21 Aug 88 22:22:59 PDT
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 88 22:22:59 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808220522.AA14982@cayuga.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Measurement error in the greenhouse theory data
There was an article on page A-11 of the Saturday Aug 10 SF Chronicle
and a front-page article in the Sunday Chronicle/Examiner.
-andy
∂22-Aug-88 0305 @RELAY.CS.NET:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp Re: new new-qlisp
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 88 03:05:15 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa22478; 22 Aug 88 6:01 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id aa07705; 22 Aug 88 5:51 EDT
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Mon, 22 Aug 88 18:42:06 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs02) with TCP; Mon, 22 Aug 88 18:40:28 JST
Date: Mon 22 Aug 88 18:41:39
From: Hiroshi Gitchang Okuno <Okuno@ntt-20.ntt.jp>
Subject: Re: new new-qlisp
To: rpg%sail.stanford.edu@nuesun.ntt.jp, arg%lucid.com@nuesun.ntt.jp
Cc: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@nuesun.ntt.jp, clt%sail.stanford.edu@nuesun.ntt.jp
In-Reply-To: <8808190021.AA03186@kolyma>
Organization: NTT Software Laboratories
Group: New Unified Environments (NUE) Group
Project: Parallel Programming
Address: 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino, Tokyo 180 JAPAN
Phone: +81 (422)59-3850
Message-Id: <12424409845.20.OKUNO@NTT-20.NTT.JP>
Dick and Ron,
Hi, I'm now in Japan. I've just finished in setting up the computing
environments to continue my Stanford jobs at NTT. I'd like to know
the current status of exporting the implementation of the QLISP
system to Japan. I'm quite interested in new new-qlisp.
Since you will be busy this week due to AAAI-88, I would greatly
appreciate it if you could inform me of it by the end of this month.
Regards,
- Gitchang -
-------
∂22-Aug-88 0410 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu For some reason, I still can't get this through to you. Try asking
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 88 04:10:19 PDT
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 02:33 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: For some reason, I still can't get this through to you. Try asking
Marjory to forward her copy.
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
From: UACCIT::IN%"Postmaster@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu" "PMDF Mail Server" 22-AUG-1988 01:01
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subj: Undeliverable mail
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 00:59 MST
From: PMDF Mail Server <Postmaster@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu>
Subject: Undeliverable mail
To: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Your message could not be delivered to:
JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Your message has been enqueued and undeliverable for 6 days.
The mail system will continue to try to deliver your message
for an additional 6 days.
The beginning of your message follows:
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 88 15:45 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: part 1 of current CEMA chapt version
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
Chapter 8: Soviet Computing Technology
by
William K. McHenry, Judy Thornton, Ted Ralston
∂22-Aug-88 0859 RFN
TO: John McCarthy
FROM: Rosemary
RE: Pat Simmons
will not be in today, August 22.
∂22-Aug-88 1522 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu more re transfer problem
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Aug 88 15:21:51 PDT
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 14:51 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: more re transfer problem
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
From: UACCIT::POSTMASTER 22-AUG-1988 12:04
To: UAMIS::GOODMAN,POSTMASTER
Subj: returned mail from stanformd
I believe that your mail was returned because
the addressee JMC does not have an account on
the target machine sail.stanford.edu. I suggest
either sending mail to the system administrator
of sail.stanford.edu or the postmaster requestinf
assistance locating or obtaining the appropriate
userid@destination_node information.
It looks like JMC accesses the network from
an unregistered machine via sail, so that it
might appear that he//she is sending from sail.
This is the name and email address of the system
administrator for sail.stanford.edu:
Martin Frost me@sail.stanford.edu
If you are unsuccessful at obtaining help from
stanford people about one of their users, send
me mail and I will try to assist.
Regards,
Postmaster@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu (internet)
Postmaster@arizrvax.bitnet (bitnet)
UACCIT::Postmaster (decnet)
∂22-Aug-88 1702 ME mail transfer problem?
To: GOODMAN%uamis@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU,
Postmaster@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
If you are having trouble getting mail through to SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
please send me a sample copy of any failed mail or a transcript of a
failing mail SMTP session. With neither of those, I have no information
from which to judge what might be the problem. Thanks.
JMC (John McCarthy) is a direct local user of SAIL.Stanford.EDU.
I don't know of any general problems with mailing to our system.
∂23-Aug-88 1234 MPS Visitor
David Billington is here from Australia on his way to
the University of Georgia on Friday am. He is interested
in nonmonotonic logic. I can refer him to Taleen for the
tech reports available. Would you want to see him or talk
to him. He is now in my office.
Pat
∂23-Aug-88 1307 MPS PTO
I have some persnal business to take care to today so
I will be leaving around 2:00. Okay?
Pat
∂23-Aug-88 1314 ME mail failures for large messages
To: GOODMAN@MIS.ARIZONA.EDU
CC: Postmaster@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
ME@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I would bet that your large messages are simply being rejected by our
mail server because they are too long. In this case, you should be
seeing the following rejection message from us.
552 Message text too long! (Try sending it in smaller pieces.)
Since you apparently aren't seeing this, and in fact since the mailer at
rvax.ccit.arizona.edu seems to be retrying for several days, my guess is
that the SMTP mailer at rvax.ccit.arizona.edu is not handling the 552
error message properly. That error reply is a "permanent" error reply,
which means that the mailer should not retry sending the message but
should instead return it to sender (preferably with the text of the 552
error message included).
The message size limit here at SAIL is currently just over 60000
characters, so I suggest that you resend your messages in pieces smaller
than that. If they are already smaller than that (including mail header),
then perhaps this is not the problem. But if you're successful in getting
the mail through by making the messages smaller, then I think
rvax.ccit.arizona.edu needs to fix its SMTP mailer.
∂23-Aug-88 1529 Qlisp-mailer Spawning Processes
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Aug 88 15:28:54 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03652; Tue, 23 Aug 88 15:27:07 PDT
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 15:27:07 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808232227.AA03652@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Spawning Processes
I heard that some of our colleagues at the Lisp conference expressed
interest in the time necessary to spawn a task.
The benchmark I use is (FIB 16), spawning a task for every call to FIB.
Using this benchmark, Qlisp takes roughly 1000 microseconds to
spawn a process (on 8 processors). New-Qlisp may be almost twice as
slow (1900 microseconds), for some (multiple-value?) reason.
I have worked on a modified version of qlisp for many months. It
involved alot of grungy programming, but I wanted to see what was
possible. It would not have been useful to merely ask the LUCID
developers to make the overhead per process as small as possible,
because it is not clear what is possible.
The result of my efforts is a very small spawning cost, roughly O(6
funcalls). It takes 52 microseconds per task on 8 processors. This
latest version is still somewhat flakey. For the fast times, it
requires the use of Condition-memory. Most of the overhead in the
modified version is caused by creating the closure, which does some
consing. It takes roughly 9 microseconds for a function call, or about
6 function calls for a spawn.
In the modified version, (FIB 16) spawning tasks all the way actually
has some real time speed-up on 8 processors. (FIB 25) spawns almost a
quarter of a million tasks, in less than 2 seconds, on 8 processors.
-Dan Pehoushek
∂23-Aug-88 1715 ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Takeuchi and you
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Aug 88 17:15:02 PDT
Date: Tue 23 Aug 88 17:16:27-PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Takeuchi and you
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: ilan@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12424842162.10.ILAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
By the way I have more or less computed the running times of the
original Takeuchi function and the version you gave to RPG.
Original function on input (n,n-1,0) (actually (n,a,0) if n>a)
calls itself at least
n * (n-2) * (n-4) ... > (n/2)! 2↑n times
Your function on input (n,n-1,0) (the slowest case) runs in at
most
(3+ sqrt{8})↑n times.
Both these estimates appear to be sharp except for some factor of
the form n↑{3/2}...
By the way the (3+sqrt{8})↑n is the number that appeared in the
generalized bracketing problem that John Justeson was considering.
Note that Takeuchi's function is much slower.
I will write this all up and am planning to give an AFLB talk
this fall.
-Ilan
-------
∂23-Aug-88 1739 paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU Les Earnest and ACLU
Received: from jessica.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Aug 88 17:39:21 PDT
Received: by jessica.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 23 Aug 88 17:38:39 PDT
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 17:38:39 PDT
From: Paul Flaherty <paulf@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Les Earnest and ACLU
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Remind me never to mention the ACLU in Les' presence.
-=paulf
PS - in 1981, my father's business (a small machine shop) was organized by
the Teamsters. During the organization period, they filed an unfair
labor practices suit, alleging that my father eavesdropped on the union.
The ACLU took up the case for the union (for free), and dropped the suit
after the vote. The Teamsters, a multibillion dollar enterprise, were able
to get all the lawyers they wanted, free. We, on the other hand, had to pay
for our own attorneys (my older brother and I cut school to work to pay the
lawyers).
Bullshit, indeed.
∂24-Aug-88 1338 trw@kubera.STANFORD.EDU Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
Received: from kubera (Kubera.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Aug 88 13:38:49 PDT
Received: by kubera ; Wed, 24 Aug 88 13:41:48 pdt
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 13:41:48 pdt
From: Tom Wooding <trw@kubera.STANFORD.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808242041.AA03453@kubera>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Re: Technological solution to abortion issue
Since you asked, I'll answer, as a `pro-choicer'.
1. I think the choice involved is the freedom to not be pregnant, so
substitution of removal of the fetus would be quite acceptable to me.
2. a Ok fine.
b1 You might find that finding adoptive carriers would be no
problem. Many, many people are unable to conceive children.
b2 Hmmm . . . I think this needs more discussion. Issues of
prenatal care, population increase, etc. come up. I'm not opposed a
priori.
3 Ok fine.
Thanks for asking.
Peace, Love, and Tofu,
-trw
I guess I'll add the usual disclaimer that I don't try to represent
anyone else.
∂24-Aug-88 1433 MPS Russian visitors
Angela (NRC) called today. Makarov will give the talk if he
has an interpreter. I have tried to get ahold of Vladimir. He
should call me back today, hopefully tomorrow. I tentatively
told Angela that Vladimir would, but not to hold me to it. Also,
Mrs. Makarov would like Alena Lifschitz to show her around while
you are having your meeting. There will be nine people for lunch
at the Faculty Club.
Questions? Will you be inviting people to Makarov's talk other
than the nine of you? I will need to know also where it will be
held so I can make arrangements. Will it be after your initial
meeting or will it be in the afternoon? Makarov's whole day
(Aug 30) is free except for his time here. You are picking them
up at the train station? Angela said they will be in Palo Alto
at 8:59 am.
Is there anything you want me to do before you come in tomorrow?
Angela will be calling anytime after 1:30 pm tomorrow. I asked
her if she would tak to me also about the final arrangements.
Pat
∂25-Aug-88 0905 MPS Phone Call
Mike Oliver (702) 883-0903 (Carson City) would like
you to call him.
Pat
∂25-Aug-88 1525 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Exec.SummaryDraft
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 88 15:24:57 PDT
Date: Thu 25 Aug 88 18:15:25-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Exec.SummaryDraft
To: duane.adams@c.cs.cmu.edu, gannon%rdvax.dec@decwrl.dec.com,
hearn@rand-unix.arpa, jlh@sierra.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu,
mchenry@mis.arizona.edu, ouster@ginger.berkeley.edu,
thornj@max.acs.washington.edu, CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa, troywil@ibm.com
cc: goodman@mis.arizona.edu
Message-ID: <12425344418.34.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Please read, tear apart, and comment on the following rough draft ASAP.
Thx,
Marjory
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -1-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Computer technology is a major source of military and economic strength to
the United States. For both reasons, it is vital to national security.
Controls on the export of computer (and other) technology aim to protect
U.S. national security. As a practical matter, it is difficult to control
exports of some forms of computer technology. It is getting more
difficult as the technology evolves and spreads to more and more
communities of users around the world.
In recognition of these and other concerns, the Department of State asked
the Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council
to explore trends in computer science and technology and prospects for
technological parity in the computer arena between the so-called West,
represented by the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls
(Cocom), and the countries within the so-called East Bloc, represented by
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) [membership in
footnote]. The Board was also asked to consider ramifications of those
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -2-
trends for export control strategies, although detailed policy analysis
was outside the scope of the request. This report is the product of the
committee convened to study those trends and ramifications.
The report includes a discussion of issues that cut across the range of
computer technologies, assessments of developments for selected computer
technologies, and an evaluation of computer technology in CMEA countries.
It presents the committee's conclusions about the evolution of computer
technologies and its impact on the feasibility and desirability of
controlling exports for selected technologies. The presentations of
issues and conclusions build on the assessments of individual technologies
and CMEA conditions and also on the deliberations of the study committee.
The committee drew on its technical assessments, special briefings, and
material of a more general nature generated by the committee as a whole.
The committee worked principally from unclassified materials.
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
The committee organized its findings in categories defined by four key
questions:
o How is computer technology evolving?
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -3-
o What is the global impact of computer science and technology; how is
it evolving in different countries?
o What is the intrinsic controllability of computer science and
technology, in particular for those elements that are valued and
desired by CMEA countries?
o What are the technological, economic, and political impacts of
attempts to control exports of computer science and technology, and
how are they balanced against impacts on national security?
These questions provide an analytical framework for a large and diverse
set of issues represented in the following matrix:
Technology Controllability
____________________________________________________
| Technical Trends | Intrinsic Controllability|
________________ _________________________
| Trends/Pace | Interdependencies |
Science | Interdependencies | Controllability |
| Commoditization | Transfer Mechanisms |
| Standards | |
| | |
____________________________________________________
| Polit-Econ Trends | Impact of Controls |
_________________ __________________
| Globalization | Definitions |
Political/Economic | Commoditization | Military Significance |
| Absorbability | Competitiveness |
| CMEA Context | |
| Military Significance | |
____________________________________________________
The top row includes issues driven by scientific progress, including how
computer technologies are developing and how that development makes it
harder or easier to control different computer technologies. The bottom
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -4-
row reflects the interaction between scientific progress and political and
economic factors that shape the markets for and applications of computer
technologies. The left column includes issues relating to the
technologies, per se, while the right column contains issues relating to
export controls. The technical focus of the committee and the limited
time and resources available to it resulted in only a cursory examination
of the impact of controls, but the committee underscores the need to fully
analyze those issues.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS
The technical assessments outline trends in selected areas of computer
technology, potentials for breakthroughs, where production and innovation
are occurring, and the amenability of specific technologies to control
efforts. The following are highlights from those assessments.
Computer Hardware
_________________
Key hardware elements include base technologies (semiconductor components,
interconnects, and storage systems); workstations, minicomputers, and
multiprocessors; supercomputers; novel parallel architectures; mass data
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -5-
storage; and personal computers. For all of these elements, power and
functionality are increasing for a given level of cost. Personal
computers (PCs) and many base technologies have become commodities--they
are produced in large volumes in many countries and are available at low
cost, often through retail channels. Production and in some cases
innovation leadership in commodity hardware has shifted from the United
States to Japan, although overall the United States and Japan share the
lead in computer hardware.
The ability of COCOM to protect hardware and other technologies depends on
the ease with which they can be acquired and replicated. The growing
reliance of increasingly sophisticated machines on base technologies that
are readily available in many countries facilitates replication of that
hardware. Further improvement in state-of-the-art hardware depends,
however, on state-of-the-art design and manufacturing capabilites, which
are much more limited in availability.
The United States dominates in technology and production for mid-range
machines and has been a leader in both supercomputers and other
high-performance machines with novel architectures. Components of
machines in both classes increasingly come from the Far East, including
newly-industrializing countries as well as Japan. Performance is
increasing significantly for mid-range machines, especially workstations.
While base technology improvements lie behind many of these improvements,
other factors increasing the value of mid-range and other machines include
growth in software and the spread of computer networking.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -6-
Software and Applications
_________________________
A major transition in software has taken place as a result of the
proliferation of PCs: software, like hardware, has become increasingly
commoditized. Like hardware, software also is increasingly characterized
by interoperable components with standard interfaces. Large-scale
software continues to be important, albeit increasingly for large-scale
integrated applications. This software is typically custom-developed and
proprietary. Tools to facilitate software creation are emerging; they
promise both greater productivity and more sophisticated software
products.
The United States is a world leader in software. However, Western Europe
also has strength in software and other countries, including
newly-industrialized countries, are increasingly moving into software
production. Software is inherently hard to control because it is easy to
transport and to replicate. Added protection can sometimes be achieved by
restricting distribution of so-called source code, which is needed to
maintain, alter functionality, or upgrade software.
Computer Manufacturing Technologies
___________________________________
Technologies for manufacturing computer hardware are themselves becoming
increasingly sophisticated. Unlike the products they yield, these
technologies are not likely to become commodities anytime soon. While the
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -7-
United States is a leader in the production of electronic computer-aided
design systems, it has begun to fall behind Japan in the production of
certain semiconductor-fabrication equipment. As enabling technologies,
design and manufacturing systems are vital to a country's capability to
develop and produce computer technology. Because they are high-cost,
low-volume items they are relatively easy to control.
Computer Networks and Security
______________________________
The proliferation of computers, especially PCs, is accompanied and abetted
by a proliferation of networks linking machines and their users. Networks
depend on low-cost, high-performance communications hardware (itself a
form of computer hardware) and a variety of software. More than any other
computer technology, computer networks depend on standards. This
dependence slows the pace of technology development. It also makes the
technology inherently public and uncontrollable. The United States has a
dual approach to networking standards and technology. The Department of
Defense has championed one set of standards while the commercial world has
begun to subscribe to another set which emerged from Western Europe.
While the spread of networking makes computer security increasingly
important, U.S. defense concerns have constrained the commercialization
and use of network and other security technologies developed in this
country. The witholding of U.S. technology from the commercial market,
including the export market, has left a vacuum that European companies
have moved to fill.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -8-
HIGHLIGHTS OF CMEA ASSESSMENT
The USSR and other CMEA countries produce and use less computer technology
than the United States and other industrialized nations. The USSR is
believed to have PCs numbering in the tens of thousands while the United
States has tends of millions of PCs. Major computer series within CMEA
appear to be patterned after popular U.S. machines, including certain IBM,
DEC, and HP equipment associated with large and diverse software
offerings.
While much of the computer technology in COCOM nations supports the
commercial or civilian economy, the military appears to dominate
production and use of computers in CMEA. Consequently, CMEA countries
lack the computer culture that has emerged elsewhere, and they lack a
self-sustaining, independent base for innovation. Computer technology and
computing are clearly targeted by CMEA countries for further development
and use. However, the impact of perestroika on computer demand is
uncertain, and there is no evidence that the privileged position of the
military as a consumer of technology will diminish.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -9-
CONCLUSIONS
Paralleling the four quadrants of the matrix above, the conclusions of the
committee fall into four sets.
Technology Trends
_________________
o Computer technology will continue to change quickly. This situation
makes it difficult to specify what should and what need not be controlled.
o Commercial, civilian products pace computer technology development in
COCOM and other non-CMEA countries.
o A growing amount of computer hardware and software emerging from
COCOM nations can be considered commodities. Commoditization is likely to
increase with standardization and further technology development.
o The movement toward parallel processing is likely to have a profound
effect on the COCOM computer technology base and the computer gap between
COCOM and CMEA countries.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -10-
Global Impact
_____________
o The computer science and technology gap between COCOM and CMEA
countries is wide and widening.
o The computer technology gap between the United States and other COCOM
nations is thin and narrowing. This gap is imporant economically and for
national security.
o Production of computer technology is taking place in a growing number
of countries, including newly-industrializing countries.
o Innovation in computer science and technology is also occurring in a
growing number of locations. As a result, the United States has lost the
technogy lead in certain base technologies, and it may be increasingly
rivaled in other areas. [rank ordering]
Controllability
_______________
o Developments in the technology itself as well as widening geographic
availability are making the transfer of computer technology from the West
increasingly difficult to control.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -11-
o The proliferation of computer networks, both intra- and especially
internationally, makes computer technology and computer-based resources
increasingly accessible and it raises concerns about computer security.
o There appears to be a discrepancy between the rate of change in
computer technology and the rate of change in control regulations. This
discrepancy increases the likelihood that controls may be applied to
technology that offers far less than what is state of the art even in CMEA
countries or technology that is widely available. It also increases the
likelihood that controls may not bapplied to new and critical
technologies.
o Rapid technology change and increasing globalization make
technological leadership increasingly important. It is easier for the
United States to control technologies in which it is the world leader.
Policy Impact
_____________
o Export controls can help to sustain the COCOM-CMEA computer gap, but
they are only one factor influencing that gap. Others include conditions
within CMEA countries and perceptions among COCOM vendors that CMEA
markets are limited. All of these factors are now changing. Other things
equal, the transfer of computer technology from the COCOM countries to
CMEA countries is likely to become easier.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -12-
o CMEA interest in technology transfer continues. It is reasonable to
expect that transferred technology will benefit the military, even where
the recipient appears to be nonmilitary.
o The suitability of computer technologies for both civilian and
military use makes it particularly difficult to designate which
technologies should be controlled and which need not be. Nevertheless,
some computer technologies warrant special control efforts. In addition
to military-specific technology (e.g., VHSIC or on-board fire control
systems) priority items fall within the following categories:
-- High-end products across the board where one or a handful can
convey significant impact. The two most obvious examples follow.
-- Computer manufacturing technology, especially chip fabrication
lines, including such pivotal elements as mask making equipment, exposure
systems, high-end ion implanters, and dry etching equipment
-- General-purpose supercomputers
-- Computer-aided design systems, especially advanced electrical
(VLSI) and mechanical design systems
-- Processed materials, including ferro-magnetic materials for
storage, and technology for producing high-grade, processed silicon
capabilities
-- Advanced development environments for large-scale software (i.e.,
software manufacturing technology)
-- Integrated systems with potential direct military applications,
including network management systems
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -13-
While these categories warrant special concern, it is not clear that all
products within them should be controlled.
o Competitiveness of the U.S. computer sector is an important national
objective. Competitiveness helps the United States to sustain the
computer gap, but it is vulnerable to poorly-conceived control efforts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
o Flexible definitions of computer technologies are needed for a
control regime that effectively protects U.S. security interests with
minimal detriment to U.S. industry.
o A computer technology should be identified and treated as a commodity
if either it is readily available from foreign sources outside COCOM
control (a condition that makes it effectively uncontrollable and
currently eliminates export restrictions), or if other factors (e.g., high
volume, low price, small size, ready availability of substitutes) make the
technology effectively uncontrollable. In either case, the technology
should be regarded as a commodity and hence effectively not controllable.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE -14-
o Better and ongoing monitoring of computer technology development and
associated market trends around the world appears to be needed. The
importance of such monitoring was underscored by the committee's own
difficulties obtaining information about global developments. More
comprehensive attention should be paid to developments around the world,
especially in non-CMEA, non-COCOM countries (e.g., newly-industrializing
nations in the Far East and Latin America). A related and particularly
important need is to identify when a technology is becoming a commodity;
this is critical to allow US manufacturers to enter the market early.
o Timely, rapid, and expert review of any definitions of controlled
technologies or categorization of technologies as controlled or not
controlled is needed to minimize adverse impacts on industry while
continuing to protect national security. The committee recognizes that
advisory committees already tap expertise from industry and the research
community, but is concerned that review of control decisions is neither
timely nor rapid, and evidence suggests that access to more expertise may
be needed to effect the best decisions.
-------
∂25-Aug-88 2015 S.SALUT@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Re: Bush press conference about replacement of Quayle.
Received: from MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 88 20:15:18 PDT
Date: Thu 25 Aug 88 20:12:11-PDT
From: Alex Bronstein <S.SALUT@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bush press conference about replacement of Quayle.
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <cX$ut@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12425398443.74.S.SALUT@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>
Is "North as new GOP VP"
- a joke from you?
- a joke from Quayle?
- the truth?
Alex
-------
∂25-Aug-88 2108 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Lisp calclulator
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 25 Aug 88 21:08:07 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa11590; 26 Aug 88 0:01 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id ab09474; 25 Aug 88 23:50 EDT
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Fri, 26 Aug 88 12:29:17 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs02) with TCP; Fri, 26 Aug 88 12:30:45 JST
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 12:30:45 JST
From: Masahiko Sato <masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp>
Message-Id: <8808260330.AA01099@MECL.NTT.jp>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu@ntt.jp
Cc: clt%sail.stanford.edu@ntt.jp
Subject: Lisp calclulator
I just got a telephone call from a Casio person who is in charge of
the pocket sized Lisp computer.
He said that the production of the computer was delayed, but the
Japanese model has just been completed. According to him, Casio is
now making an American model specially for you. (He said that, at
present, they have no plan of producing American models.) Japanese
model is said to have a Kana keyboard. He said that the American
model will be ready within a few weeks.
He also said that the engineers who developed the computer are very
excited to hear that you have interests in the computer. For this
reason, Casio is wishing to donate the computer to you in Kyoto when
you come for the Kyoto prize. Will you accept this idea?
Let me change the subject here. I have a research assistant here at
Tohoku University. His name is Yukiyoshi Kameyama, and he recetly got
a sholarship to see America for 3 weeks. He is wishing to visit your
department for 3 weeks (from November 27 to December 17). His main
interest is application of constructive mathematics to computer
science. It would be nice if you could accept his visit. In case you
accept his visit, would it be possible for him to share an office.
(If office problem is easier to solve at CSLI, I will try to contact CSLI.)
∂26-Aug-88 0308 LES re: Bush press conference about replacement of Quayle.
[In reply to message rcvd 25-Aug-88 20:33-PT.]
I confess that I did not read to the end. I smelled a rat immediately,
ran NS to verify, and posted.
Actually, Ollie would help the ticket.
∂26-Aug-88 0559 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU re: Exec.SummaryDraft
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 05:58:57 PDT
Date: Fri 26 Aug 88 08:56:56-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: re: Exec.SummaryDraft
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <SX#ep@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12425504892.33.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
The biggest problem I found in drafting an exec sum was to make sense in
a small space of the technical assessments. Suggestions on how to
bring them alive sans reciting truisms?
-------
∂26-Aug-88 1034 MPS Phone Call
Panovsky called and will see you at lunch and at the
presentation.
Pat
∂26-Aug-88 1227 @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu Re: AI and the Vincennes incident
Received: from aplvax.jhuapl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 12:27:16 PDT
Received: by aplvax.jhuapl.edu (5.51/1.14)
id AA22029; Fri, 26 Aug 88 15:25:16 EDT
Received: by stdc.jhuapl.edu (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA05654; Fri, 26 Aug 88 15:20:09 EDT
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 15:20:09 EDT
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Message-Id: <8808261920.AA05654@stdc.jhuapl.edu>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: AI and the Vincennes incident
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
In-Reply-To: <19880824193247.1.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Cc:
yep
--
Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
∂26-Aug-88 1305 @RELAY.CS.NET:kam%clover.riec.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET my visit to Stanford
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 13:02:28 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa21595; 26 Aug 88 15:31 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ac14600; 26 Aug 88 15:19 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA28261; Sat, 27 Aug 88 02:26:43 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Fri, 26 Aug 88 19:48:38 JST
Received: from clover.riec.tohoku.junet by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA02599; Fri, 26 Aug 88 18:11:34 JST
Received: by clover.riec.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA11720; Fri, 26 Aug 88 18:10:54 JST
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 18:10:54 JST
From: Yukiyoshi Kameyama <kam%clover.riec.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <kam@clover.riec.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8808260910.AA11720@clover.riec.tohoku.junet>
To: jmc%sail.stanford.edu%csnet-relay.csnet%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET,
clt%stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: my visit to Stanford
Dear Prof. McCarthy, and Dr. Talcott,
I am Y. Kameyama, a research associate under Prof. Masahiko
Sato. He might have already noticed that, I will visit Stanford
University for three weeks from the end of November. My main
interest is in the formal theory of programming, in particular,
programming system based on intuitionistic logic. Because
this is my first time to visit there, I do not know much about
there. But I will be very glad if I can meet researchers in
theoretical fields.
Thank you very much in advance. I am looking forward
to seeing you.
Yukiyoshi Kameyama
(kam%riec.tohoku.junet@relay.cs.net)
∂26-Aug-88 1348 boesch@vax.darpa.mil ISTO PI MEETING
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 13:48:22 PDT
Received: from sun46.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00653; Fri, 26 Aug 88 16:42:14 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 16:42:51 EDT
Message-Id: <8808262042.AA04152@sun46.darpa.mil>
Received: from LOCALHOST by sun46.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04152; Fri, 26 Aug 88 16:42:55 EDT
To: dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: ISTO PI MEETING
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 16:42:51 EDT
From: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
It has come to my attention that a number of people did not get my
initial mailing of the ISTO PI meeting announcement. I suspect some
mailer problems cause I sent to a mail exploder and some people got
the message.
Would anyone who does not receive this message please ask me to send
it again. (The previous sentence was a test to see who is paying attention.
Would all receivers please give me an ack.)
The meeting will be held at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Hyatt, on
14 through 18 November 1988. We will start at noon on the 14th and
end at noon on the 18th, so you can travel on those days.
We have done our best to make it convenient to attend, although we
recognize that some conflicts are inevitable.
Details are still being planned, and will be announced as soon as they
are finalized.
The following is some info on the meeting in outline format.
Note this is not an agenda but a plan for the meeting.
PLAN FOR DARPA/ISTO 1988 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS MEETING
I. BACKGROUND
A. Goals
1. Cross-Fertilization Within ISTO Research Community.
2. Tech Transfer Outside ISTO (Agents, ex-PM's, Etc.).
3. Produce A Snapshot Of ISTO Technology
a. Non-Technical Issues (ie. Contracting)<Tab><HR>
b. Program Thrusts
B. Structure
1. ISTO Steering Committee: Pullen, Squires, Simpson
2. Program Committee: Amarel, Newell, Clark, Despain
C. Schedule
1. To be developed by Steering Committee with review by Program
Committee
2. Topics interleaved from area-specific sessions provided by
Program Committee
3. Approximately 25% general topics added by Steering Committee
(keynotes, etc.)
D. Technical areas (one virtual day each)
1. Computer Systems/Software
a. Parallel Computer Architectures
b. Software
c. VLSI Design and prototyping
2. Networking/C3
a. Networking
b. Distributed Systems
c. C3
d. Distributed Simulation
3. AI
4. Manufacturing/Robotics (half day?)
5. Testbeds to be treated under related technical area
II. PRESENTATION FORMAT
A. Technical areas
1. Survey
a. Macro (1 hour)
b. Micro (n * 20 minutes)
2. Research Highlights
a. Solid Accomplishments (20 minutes)
b. Community Themes/Trends (20 minutes)
3. DARPA PM Input: Program Overview
B. Other 25%
1. ISAT
2. Hot Seat Panel
3. Keynotes/Luncheons
4. Programmatics
C. Documents
1. Speakers
a. Abstract
b. Slides (reduced)
2. All PIs: one sheet containing
a. Project title
b. PI name, address, net address, phone number
c. Project summary
d. List one or two recent references
e. If not received, material taken from on-hand project
summary
III. MILESTONES
A. By 6 September each technical area must identify:
1. Macro Speaker (invite as soon as agreed to)
2. Micro Speakers
3. Research Speakers
B. By 15 September Steering Committee will produce schedule
C. By 15 October all documents must be ready to print
(project summaries,abstracts,slides
D. Meeting begins 14 November
IV. ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESSES
A. Broadcast mailer: isto-pi-list@vax.darpa.mil
B. Program and steering committees: pgm-cmte@vax.darpa.mil
C. PI Meeting clerk: pimeet@vax.darpa.mil
**********************************************************************
THE FOLLOWING IS YOUR ACTION FOR ME:
1. Please submit a project summary one for each project (ie:
BSD UNIX, Dash, Mach, Camelot, ISIS, Tangram, HIPAC ....)
for publication in the Meeting Notes of the upcoming DARPA/ISTO
Principal Investigators Meeting. The following information is required:
- - Project title
- - PI name, address, net address, phone number
- - Project summary
- - List one or two recent references
The information may be submitted by email to pimeet@vax.darpa.mil,
or mailed to DARPA/ISTO, ATTN: PI Meeting, 1400 Wilson Blvd,
Arlington VA 22209. Whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, the material must fit on one 8.5 by 11 inch page with 1 inch
margins, printed in 12 pt type.
If a usable Project Summary is not received from you by 14 October,
we will make one up out of whatever information we have on hand.
From what I understand about the intended format of the meeting about
three to four 20 minute presentations will be made from the Dist
sys/database area. I would like to haveyour inputs on which projects
you think should be outlined. Jack Schwartz and I will have to make
the final decision on who speaks. All projects will be summarized
very briefly in the overview for the area.
Thanks for your cooperation. As I learn more about this I will try to
keep you informed. Sorry about the delay but I just realized that so
few people got a message.
Brian
∂26-Aug-88 1413 dayal@cca.cca.com Re: ISTO PI MEETING
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 14:13:00 PDT
Posted-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 17:07:18 EDT
Received: from CCA.CCA.COM by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00772; Fri, 26 Aug 88 17:07:20 EDT
Received: by CCA.CCA.COM; Fri, 26 Aug 88 17:07:18 EDT
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 17:07:18 EDT
From: dayal@cca.cca.com (Umeshwar Dayal)
Message-Id: <8808262107.AA25428@CCA.CCA.COM>
To: boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Subject: Re: ISTO PI MEETING
Cc: dayal@vax.darpa.mil, dpsys-pi@vax.darpa.mil
Brian,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your message. I did not receive your
earlier message(s) about this PI meeting. I'll send you a detailed
response to your action items next week.
--Umesh Dayal.
∂26-Aug-88 1620 MPS
Betty Scott called and gave us all permission
to leave because of the weather. 4:15. See you
Monday. Have a good one.
Pat
∂26-Aug-88 2231 Mailer Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Aug 88 22:31:43 PDT
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 88 22:27:45 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <CYBEY@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12425685266.19.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
The Mighty Mouse episode is proof that Accuracy in Media is a bunch
of right-wing clods with nothing better to do with their time than
to dream up lunatic issues to protest.
I too have not seen the sequence in question. But I have heard that
it was a second or so showing MM taking a deep whiff of *something*.
It requires a true amount of paranoia to interpret that as promoting
cocaine (ab)use.
CBS's behavior doesn't surprise me. CBS has always been a network
of effete wimps, dating back from the McCarthy era witch-hunts when
CBS assisted in the persecution of their own people. Give me NBC
or CNN/WTBS/TNT any time. Ted Turner may be an asshole, but at least
he's got balls and he isn't afraid to air controversial material.
-------
∂27-Aug-88 0926 Mailer re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Aug 88 09:26:38 PDT
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 88 09:22:43 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <uYDDm@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12425804499.12.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Of JMC's 5 listed viewpoints, the closest to my own is #3. The whole
thing is a tempest in a teapot. Accuracy In Media's involvement in
this affair is just a means of attracting attention and securing
credibility for AIM's goofy right-wing agenda. After all, what better
enemy to attack than one that doesn't exist ("left-wing elements that
want to encourage drug abuse")?
I seriously doubt that any child would have interpreted the sequence
as cocaine-sniffing, much less get the idea that cocaine is OK from
seeing it. In other words, the sequence is harmless. The only harm
that's been done is that AIM (and Bakshi) got a lot of (undeserved)
attention, and that CBS kowtowed again and fired a vice-president.
-------
∂27-Aug-88 1037 CLT telescope
You might see what the possibilities are.
He also indicated a desire for binoculars last spring.
He has a pair, so I assume he wants something better,
but I don't know just what. Probably we should consult mom.
[They have mumbled about moving to a condo -- if they do that
a telescope might not be so useful, hard to say. Also I
don't know what time frame they are thinking of or if they are
serious.]
ps
house[1,clt]/8p has a draft description for listing the house.
you might take a look and see if you can think of more to say
or better ways to say what is there. Hopefully the appraisal
will arrive on Monday so we can take it over.
∂28-Aug-88 1526 RPG NSF
I think I don't agree with your tirade against NSF, however, I think
it is the force of it that I don't like. As you know, I believe that
multi-investigator projects can make sense, and there seem to be cases
where an externally set research agenda can be more productive than
an internally set one. Of course, I don't think that multi-investigator
projects to the exclusion of the traditional NSF style is proper either.
To put the worst light on ``unsolicited proposals unrestricted as to
content,'' I would ask why it is that you think that research whose
primary goal is to produce a maximum number of minimum-tenure-quality
papers will coincide with good science? Do you think that the researchers
doing the judging for NSF who are in the same boat as the proposers will
opt to hinder his colleagues from playing the same game as himself?
I think it is proper for the government to set research agendas when those
agendas would not naturally occur. Whether the particular example you cite
is worthy of consideration is a separate question. Do yo think that NSF should
remain the playpen of the solitary researcher with large projects funded pnly
through military funding channels?
There is an interesting, and I think undesireable, fallout from the
tendency for CS research to be lone wolf today. There are several parts of
legitimate CS research where the best (and possibly the only) work being
done is by industry. These areas are in user interface design, operating
systems, programming languages, and programming methodologies. And by and
large this work is being done by PC software companies. This would seem
to be a good situation because the research base is broadening. On the
other hand, the funding is not available to these small (but not lone
wolf) groups in sufficient amounts to press ahead as fast as they could.
Also, these people are not the sort to join your elite corps of
``scientific and professional societies'' who will set policy for NSF,
according to your plan.
My belief is that there is a balance that needs to be struck between
group and individual projects at NSF and at other funding agencies.
As a bit of advice, if you want to actually have some influence over the
people at NSF, you should consider phrasing your queries in a little
less antagonistic manner. Only in the case that you wanted to create
an advesary relationship between the NSF guy and yourself did you accomplish
what you set out to accomplish.
-rpg-
∂28-Aug-88 2147 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu RE: re: Exec.SummaryDraft
Received: from mis.arizona.edu (misvax.mis.arizona.edu) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Aug 88 21:47:22 PDT
Received: by mis.arizona.edu id <20C03C27112@mis.arizona.edu> ;
Sun, 28 Aug 88 21:46:54 MST
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 88 21:46:02 MST
From: GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu
Subject: RE: re: Exec.SummaryDraft
To: John McCarthy <JMC@sail.stanford.edu>
X-VMS-Mail-To: EXOS%"John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>"
Message-ID: <880828214602.20C03C27112@mis.arizona.edu>
I group I was with this weekend tried to approach Velikhov about possible
quid pro quo for reduction of export controls. Private meeting. Almost
worthless. He just said the usual things.
∂28-Aug-88 2148 VAL Soviet visitors
Pat told me that we're meeting with them Tuesday, not Monday. Is that right?
∂29-Aug-88 0800 JMC
Regis-McKenna
∂29-Aug-88 0901 HILLER@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 09:01:40 PDT
Date: Mon 29 Aug 88 09:01:19-PDT
From: Bonnie Hiller <HILLER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mighty Mouse and cocaine snorting
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <CYBEY@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12426324889.13.HILLER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I'm obviously the only person who reads this bboard willing to admit that
yes, I DO watch Mighty Mouse and yes, I DID see the "offending" sequence
and (ulp!) I might even have it on tape...I still have to check.
Mighty Mouse sniffed a bouquet of crushed flowers, stems and tomatoes.
A bully had just crushed a poor flower girl's flowers, and she was
attempting to repair the dammage by using tomato wedges as blossoms.
It looked clearly like a bouquet and nothing like coccaine.
Tempest in a teapot wins.
-Bonnie
By the way, if you haven't seen the new Mighty Mouse, try it once. It's
like the old Warner Brothers cartoons in that kids can enjoy it, but it's
got all kinds of stuff for adults too.
-------
∂29-Aug-88 1027 ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU congratulations
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 10:26:54 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Mon, 29 Aug 88 10:26:08 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 29 Aug 88 10:27:00 PDT
Received: from UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU (ATM) by UWAVM.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU
(Mailer X1.24) with BSMTP id 8099; Mon, 29 Aug 88 10:24:19 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1988 10:25 PDT
From: Alice terMeulen <ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: congratulations
To: <MCCARTHY@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Hi John,
Zeno, who is generally more in touch with the outside world than I am,
read in one of the Dutch newspapers in July that you had been awarded
the very prestigious Kyoto Price by the Japanese. Have our congratulations!
The newspaper article was quite explicit about your accomplishments,
but did limelight Chomsky more. I now realize I should have cut out
the article for you to have.
Sorry I did not.
Carolyn tells me you're about to buy a new home with the money from
the price. I'm glad you chose to give it such a immediately
tangible effect. Will there be kids in the neighborhood for Timothy
to befriend?
I hope the celebrations for the price will be very Japanese. Do yoiu
know exactly how far to bow already, so that it be less far than the
person bowing to you? I hope you'll have a great time.
Best to you all,
Alice
∂29-Aug-88 1155 CLT calls
what are the rates?
∂29-Aug-88 1157 lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: qualification of previous message
Received: from note.nsf.gov by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 11:57:01 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
cc: lrosenberg@note.nsf.gov, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: qualification of previous message
In-reply-to: Your message of 28 Aug 88 16:40:00 -0700.
<uZtZG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 14:41:40 -0400
From: Laurence Rosenberg <lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov>
Message-ID: <8808291441.aa00824@note.note.nsf.gov>
Dear John,
Thanks for your Email message of 8/28/88 informing me of your
interest in knowing more about our special initiative on
coordination theory and technology. Also, it is nice to have your
confirmation that the brochure announcing the initiative has, in
fact, been received by many in the research community.
I would be delighted if you would consider applying for one of
these grants. If you decide to so do, I can assure you that your
fear that it will not compete fairly is totally unfounded. In
reality, the proposal will have the chance to compete against all
others coming to the Information Technology and Organizations
Program, since as the initiative brochure clearly states, awards
will be contingent on the quality of proposals as well as the
availability of funds. The panel judging this competition is in
addition to the normal peer review, and thus offers an extra
protection to insure that only proposals of high scientific merit
will win awards.
Copies of your inquiry to me were sent to all the Stanford Faculty
and to and address at CMU. But, many others have also worked to
develop the ideas reflected in this initiative. Over the past two
years there have been three major workshops on this topic, many
conferences where these ideas were presented, as well as less
formal discussions among interested scholars. There is a real
excitement and interest in what we have called "coordination
theory and technology." The scholars involved in these efforts
have convinced us that it is appropriate to stimulate multi.disciplinary research on the topics described in the brochure.
Drafts of the brochure itself were seen, and contributions to it
made, by many people in the relevant scientific communities..including colleagues of yours at Stanford Computer Science
Department, and by NSF advisory committees and management.
I will get back to you very soon with the other information you
wanted. Thanks again,
Larry
∂29-Aug-88 1232 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu new piece for conclusions
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 12:32:25 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 10:50 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: new piece for conclusions
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS, THORNTON
I think our conclusions need a little beefing up. In particular, I would
like to include the material I've written below to help pull together the
Soviet-related tech transfer material, and to put a slightly more detailed
perspective into the context of a fairly short but comprehensive model that
also explicitly ties into a little of globalization, etc. I went through
the discussion below at our second meeting, and during the third we decided
to include it, but I think what's now in the draft conclusion chapter needs
to be expanded as I have done. The 3-day workshop export control workshop I
attended and our meeting with Velikhov convinced me (and all the workshop
members) that the 3-factor presentation below can be very helpful.
Please get back to me if you have any comments. We'll need your responses,
if any, by late Wednesday. If there is no groundswell of objections, I'll
work out the place of insertion with Marjory.
----------------
To include in conclusions chapter:
Three main factors have long severely retarded the quality
and quantity of computer-related technology transfer from the
West to the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries. They
are:
1. Export controls. For example, controls on the sale of
manufacturing know-how and facilities for certain
microelectronic and disk storage products.
2. Limited opportunities as seen by Western companies. For
example, restricted direct access to domestic markets,
bureaucratic grief, problems with the forms of payment and the
removal of hard currency profits from the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe.
3. Self-imposed constraints. For example, extreme forms of
protectionism for Soviet and East European domestic industry in
the forms of national security and currency controls, travel
restrictions on their own citizens, poor mechanisms for internal
technology transfer, etc.
While it is impossible to come up with a quantitative factor
analysis of the relative importance of these three general sets
of retardants, we believe that the self-imposed constraints have
been most important. However, it is clear that all three combine
to severely handicap Warsaw Pact progress in computer technology.
This may be best understood by considering a two-dimensional
characterization of technology transfer mechanisms (Fig. 1).
| Most active
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most covert | Most overt
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Most passive
Fig. 1
Characterization of Technology Transfer Mechanisms
Active mechanisms are those that involve close feedback
iteration between the technology sources and its receivers.
Apprenticeship relations are among the most active mechanisms.
The most passive mechanisms do not involve any direct feedback.
Perhaps the most extensively used passive mechanism is the open
literature. Generally speaking, active mechanisms tend to be more
effective than passive mechanisms. Similarly, we believe that the
problems of using covert mechanisms make this class far less
effective than overt mechanisms.
Collectively, these three main factors work together to
heavily skew the distribution of Soviet and East European use of
technology transfer mechanisms towards the lower left (covert,
passive) quadrant of Fig. 1. Although there are covert and
passive elements to other US-foreign relations in the computer
technologies, no other set of international relations is so
highly skewed towards the (covert, passive) quadrant. Compared to
other possibilities, this is a very ineffective distribution.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these
constraints have seriously and broadly impaired the development
of computing in the Warsaw Pact countries since the beginning of
the modern electronic, digital computer era. In fact, in some
ways, it is more surprising that these countries are as backward
as they are than it would be if they were modestly more advanced
in these technologies. It is not difficult to imagine significant
possibilities for further progress if one or more of the sets of
constraining factors would be removed or greatly reduced.
However, almost everything related to computing is dynamic, and this
applies to the prospective continued effectiveness of these retardants. How
might we expect the continued globalization and commoditization of
computing, and developments under perestroika to affect the future of
East-West technology transfer in computing? We briefly consider each of the
main factors in turn.
1. Export control. Although they have been reasonably
effective in that past, current export controls are likely to
become less so in the future as a result of several trends. Among
technological trends we might include new systems architectures,
sustained rates of microelectonic miniaturization, and the
variety and rate of emergence of new products that incorporate
sophisticated technologies. Other important trends come under the
umbrella of the globabization and commoditization of computing that
has been discussed at some length throughout this report.
Perhaps the most important of these are the sheer physical
availability of computing products and the rapid increase in the
number of capable non-U.S. suppliers. The self-interests of the
latter do not include much concern for threats to US and NATO
security from militarily undesirable technology transfers. These
trends are making it easier for the Soviets and other worrisome
countries to find alternate technical solutions to, and suppliers
for their needs, and to acquire and transport products.
2. Limited opportunities as seen by Western companies. With
the "new detente" that seems to be part of current
Soviet-American relations, the Soviets are once again touting
opportunities to attract Western businesses to Eastern customers.
Technology transfer is clearly a major motivating factor behind
such efforts as Soviet overtures to form joint enterprises and
the other activities discussed in Ch. X. Ideally, the Soviets
would like their Western partners to transfer a great deal of
technology, to train Soviet computer people using some of the
more active and overt transfer mechanisms that had not been
widely used before, and to have the Western partner agree to
arrangements that do not cost the Soviets hard currency (in fact,
to show them how to export and make hard currency) or other hard
goods. Ideally, Western companies would like to simply sell
products directly into the large Soviet economy and have the
flexibility to take their earnings in hard currency as they do
elsewhere. In spite of the apparent mismatch, history has shown
that there are always Western companies and academics willing to
jump in and try to work with the Soviets under almost any
conditions, and the Soviets are not oblivious to this history.
Right now there are probably a record number of Western companies
and academics, for a variety of reasons, doing computer-related
things with the Soviets. This is resulting in a greater amount of
free or low cost computer-related technology transfer than has
ever taken place before. Although much of this technology
transfer is also of a fairly low grade, it does provide some of
the broad based transfer that has been so notably missing in the
past.
3. Self-imposed constraints. Much of the motivation and
drive behind perestroika comes from the goals of technological
modernization and diffusion. Much of what is being done or
proposed is designed to improve the environment for the more
effective development and utilization of technology. No
technology is more important in both image and substance, and
especially in the potential breadth of application, than the
computer technologies. Two of the most important issues with
regard to the current reform is the extent to which the Soviets
will remove or modify the self-imposed constraints, and the
extent to which these changes will make a difference. Various
forms of technology transfer are clearly relevant to these
questions. While the first two sets of contraints are in some
ways more concerned with acquisition rather than with the
absorption of technology, the self-imposed constraints are much
more relevant to absorption.
In summary, all three principal factors are now in a period of
unusually rapid modification as a result of trends in computer technology
and the globalization of that technology on the one hand, and with changes
in the Soviet system and in Soviet behavior with regard to contacts with
foreigners on the other. The vast majority of these changes -- especially
those that come under aspects of globalization and commoditization -- will
tend to promote an increase in both the quality and quantity of technology
transfer. As a result there is a great deal of additional pressure on export
controls to "hold the line" than there has ever been before. Conversely,
there will be a great deal of additional pressure to modify export controls
to be more in keeping with the technological and international "facts of
life."
The changes on the Soviet side are reflective of how
seriously they worry about their lags in computer technology and
of an almost desperate attempt to close these gaps. The Soviets
are also trying to cautiously begin to take part in the
globalization of computing that has been described earlier in
this study. Although our analysis shows that it is now much
easier for the Soviets to acquire more computer technology, their
changing position is by no means enviable. It is now harder for
them to keep up because there is so much more for them to keep up
with. Export controls are like a merchant trying to protect the
goods of his candy store from theft. The US and CoCom can try to
run around the store and stand in front of potential thieves.
Sometimes this is successful and sometimes it is not, but just
the effort serves to make it harder for the prospective thieves.
They may make a big deal of their successful thefts in the hope
of discouraging the merchant from further efforts, but the
picture is not attractive from the standpoint of the thieves.
Only very limited success comes with the kinds of thefts they are
pulling off. Real success requires that much more candy be
acquired and that it all be eaten. The changes the Soviets are
making with regard to factors 2. and 3. are illustrative of the
increased extent to which they now appreciate this and of the
price they are considering paying so as to not fall further
behind.
∂29-Aug-88 1240 ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU RE: re: congratulations
Received: from lindy.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 12:40:45 PDT
Received: by lindy.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Mon, 29 Aug 88 12:39:54 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 29 Aug 88 12:40:29 PDT
Received: from UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU (ATM) by UWAVM.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU
(Mailer X1.24) with BSMTP id 9215; Mon, 29 Aug 88 12:38:02 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1988 12:39 PDT
From: Alice terMeulen <ATM%UWACDC.ACS.WASHINGTON.EDU@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: RE: re: congratulations
To: <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Aha, le me know what you do when someone bows to you while you sit.
That's a frequent embarrasment for me with my Japanese students in my office.
I usually just say 'bye' with a slight nod.
We're in a new house here too, though still rented (from a biochemistry
gene-cloning prof on leave). We have TWO spare bedrooms, one with
a child's bed and a futon just right for Timothy - in case you have
any reason to make another trip NorthWest.
Two pictures from our Roche Harbor trip just arrived in the mail.
I especially like the one you must have taken, with Timothy and Timen,
Hazel adn Zeno in the little boat -all in vests.
So long,
Alice
∂29-Aug-88 1351 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu export control meeting
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 13:51:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 10:13 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: export control meeting
To: DUANE.ADAMS@c.cs.cmu.edu, BLUMENTHAL@a.isi.edu, DONGARRA@anl-mcs.arpa,
GANNON%RDVAX.DEC@decwrl.dec.com, JAHIR@athena.mit.edu, HEARN@rand-unix.arpa,
JLH@sierra.stanford.edu, JMC@sail.stanford.edu, KNEMEYER@a.isi.edu,
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET, OUSTER@ginger.berkeley.edu, Ralston@mcc.com,
CWEISSMAN@dockmaster.arpa
X-VMS-To: @NAS
I participated in a workshop on export controls this weekend. Two items
that may be of interest to you:
1. The new Trade Act has been passed by Congress. In general, it moves
along lines that are consistent with our views and deliberations. However,
my overall impression was that the US Government types there still had
only a weak feel for the extent of globalization and commoditization as
we have seen it. I did not press these points as strongly as a might have
there (because of restrictions on me talking about our conclusions before
formal release), but I think they should be receptive to that emphasis
in our report when we get it out.
2. Because of an odd coincidence, my workshop group (about 2 dozen people)
was able to meet with Velikhov for a little under an hour. Some of the
people there were thinking along the same lines as John McCarthy and others
on our committee and the main general opening presented to him was to
come up with some "new thinking" on a Soviet quid pro quo (or at least
relaxation of Western concerns) if export controls were substantially
lowered. Unfortunately, Velikhov was not at all responsive. He just made
the usual Soviet statements on export controls and related matters.
∂29-Aug-88 1623 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Aug 88 16:23:18 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05268; Mon, 29 Aug 88 16:20:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 16:20:52 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808292320.AA05268@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
From: fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES AND LANGUAGES EUROPE
Message-ID: <2888@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 88 12:26:42 GMT
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 103
SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS PARLE89
=========================================================================
PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES AND LANGUAGES EUROPE
12-16 JUNE 1989, EINDHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS
DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING YOUR FULL DRAFT: 21 OCTOBER 1988
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PARLE 89, the second conference on Parallel Architectures and Languages
Europe, is intended to serve as a meeting place for researchers in the
fields of theory, design and applications of parallel computer systems.
The general scope of the conference is defined below. The initiative for
the conference was taken by project 415 of the European Strategic
Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology (ESPRIT)
of the Commission of the European Communities.
SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE
Papers are solicited on any aspect of Parallel Architectures and
Languages. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
#CONCEPTS AND PARADIGMS FOR PARALLEL SYSTEMS.
Concurrent, object-oriented, logic, and functional programming.
Process theory and Petri nets.
Formal methods for design, specification, and verification.
#LANGUAGES AND MODELS FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING.
Parallel languages and programming methodologies.
Synchronization and communication.
Semantics and models for parallelism.
Programming environments.
#DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PARALLEL ARCHITECTURES.
MIMD, SIMD, dataflow, inference and reduction computers.
VLSI, ULSI, and RISC architectures for parallel machines
Interconnection networks.
Memory management, fault tolerance, real time aspects.
Experience with working systems.
#SPECIAL PURPOSE PARALLEL SYSTEMS.
Dedicated processors for AI.
Systolic arrays, neural networks.
Distributed databases and parallel database machines.
#EVALUATION OF PARALLEL SYSTEMS.
Performance.
Simulation.
Debugging and monitoring tools.
#APPLICATIONS OF PARALLEL PROCESSING.
Applications in AI and symbolic computation.
SUBMISSION OF PAPERS
Authors are invited to submit five copies, in english, of a draft full paper
not exceeding 6000 words, before October 21, 1988, to one of the program
committee chairmen:
Prof. Dr. M. Rem Dr. J.C. Syre
Eindhoven University of European Computer Industry
Technology Research Centre
P.O.Box 513 Arabellastrasse 17
5600 MB Eindhoven D-8000 Munchen 81
The Netherlands West Germany
mcvax!eutrc3!wsinrem jclaude@ecrcvax.uucp
An additional page will give the title of the paper, the authors'names and
addresses (including e-mail, phone and fax to accelerate communication), the
area topic taken from above, and a summary of 150-200 words.
Papers not fulfilling the above conditions will not be considered for
reviewing. Papers arrived later than Oct 21st will not be considered unless
their authors notify the program chairman of a possible post delay.
Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by February 1, 1989.
For the inclusion in the conference proceedings to be published in the
Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science Series, the final camera-ready
copy must be received before March 20, 1989.
ACT NOW ! SEND YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE BIG EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON
PARALLEL PROCESSING
=========================================================================
Jean-Claude Syre off: +49 (0)89 92 699 127
Computer Architecture Group sec: +49 (0)89 92 699 153
European Computer Industry Research Centre rec: +49 (0)89 92 699 1
Arabellastr. 17 fax: +49 (0)89 92 699 170
D-8000 Munich 81 email: jclaude@ecrcvax
West Germany "in AI, one thing is sure: nothing is certain"
======== nothing to claim, hence nothing to disclaim, dig it?============
--
Steve Stevenson fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
(aka D. E. Stevenson), fpst@prism.clemson.csnet
Department of Computer Science, comp.parallel
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell
∂29-Aug-88 2045 ME bitnet mail
∂29-Aug-88 2004 JMC
Can you find me an address that will work for
MCHENRY@GUVAX.BITNET
ME - Try
MCHENRY%GUVAX.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
This should work for all Bitnet addresses.
∂30-Aug-88 0916 MPS
He might be out to supper right now. At 8:30 am that is what
he said he would be doing
44-41-552-6400 or 44-41-552-1353
∂30-Aug-88 1724 RTC Oops
I meant to send a message to su-etc, but I suspect I just
sent it to you. Would you send it back to me, or forward it
to su-etc?
Thanks,
Ross.
∂31-Aug-88 1432 HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU Research Mentor Info
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Aug 88 14:32:08 PDT
Date: Wed 31 Aug 88 14:30:08-PDT
From: Sharon Hemenway <HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Research Mentor Info
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12426909039.39.HEMENWAY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Prof. McCarthy:
I have not yet received from you revisions to your 1987-88 research
descriptions for the Research Mentor packet we give to incoming Ph.D.
students. Shall I include them unchanged in the 1988-89 version,
delete them totally or can you send me revisions within the next week?
I have appended below the two entries from last year (Dick Gabriel has
already sent me revisions to the QLISP entry).
Sharon
FACULTY: John McCarthy
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES: Vladimir Lifschitz
GROUP: Commonsense Reasoning
RESEARCH: Developing the theory of commonsense
knowledge and reasoning, which is concerned with designing formal
languages for expressing commonsense knowledge and with representing
the process of commonsense reasoning by logical deduction. This theory
plays a central part in AI. Its mathematical foundation is formed
mainly by the concepts and ideas of logic which were originally
proposed for the formalization and study of proofs in mathematics.
There are remarkable similarities between commonsense reasoning and
mathematical proofs, but there are also important differences. One
distinctive feature of commonsense reasoning is the use of default
assumptions, when an argument is justified by the absense of certain
information among available facts. Default reasoning is non-monotonic,
in the sense that extending the given knowledge base may invalidate
some of the previously used default assumptions and thus force us to
retract some of the conclusions made before. The study of
non-monotonic reasoning is a new and intensively developing area of
applied logic, and it plays a central part in our work.
FUNDING: DARPA
STRUCTURE: Informal structure, weekly seminars.
SLOTS AVAILABLE: Two unpaid slots now, but funding is pending.
FACULTY: John McCarthy
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES: Carolyn Talcott and Natarajan Shankar
GROUP: Program Proving
RESEARCH: The goals of the project are to:
1. construct theories to reason about program behavior,
2. devise techniques for program and hardware verification, and
3. develop tools and heuristics for automated proof checking.
One aim of the work in the mathematical theory of computation is to
provide a logical foundation for programming by axiomatizing
notions of computation such as abstraction, application, recursion,
reflection, control, state, resource, concurrency, etc. Another aim
is to influence programming language design by identifying powerful and
elegant unifying concepts.
The second component of the research is the development of powerful
and rigorous techniques for specifying program properties, deriving
programs, selecting data structures, reusing and optimizing code, etc.
A general purpose automated proof checking system is being designed
to assist in proof construction and manipulation. The proof checker
will serve as a testbed for the above ideas on program verification.
STUDENTS: Gian Luigi Bellin, Alex Bronstein, and Lou Galbiati are
currently working on the project.
FUNDING: DARPA
STRUCTURE: Informal.
SLOTS AVAILABLE: Two unpaid slots now, but funding is pending.
FACULTY: John McCarthy, Richard Gabriel (consulting)
GROUP: QLISP
RESEARCH ASSOCIATES: Arkady Rabinov, Igor Rivin, Carolyn Talcott
RESEARCH: QLISP is an extension of Common Lisp for programming
shared-memory multiprocessors. The language is designed to to facilitate
programmer control of parallelism. The scheduling of tasks occurs at
runtime. Current research interests lie in the design of parallel
algorithms for problems in the domain of symbolic computation, such as
computer algebra, AI heuristics and the like, which are thought to be
particularly amenable to the QLISP programming model. The implementation
of these algorithms in QLISP points the way to refining the language
definition and implementation. There is also interaction with people in
CIS and KSL interested in applying QLISP and with other parallel lisp
groups (such as MIT's MultiLisp project).
BASIC REFERENCE: R. Gabriel and J. McCarthy, "Qlisp," in "Parallel
Computation and Computers for Artificial Intelligence," edited by J. S.
Kowalick.
FUNDING: DARPA
STRUCTURE: Informal structure, weekly meetings.
SLOTS AVAILABLE: Three
PhD STUDENTS: Joe Weening
-------
∂31-Aug-88 1526 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU A million processes in 10 seconds
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Aug 88 15:26:25 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02383; Wed, 31 Aug 88 15:24:00 PDT
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 15:24:00 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8808312224.AA02383@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: A million processes in 10 seconds
On 8 processors, spawning a task for each call to NFIB, the modified
Qlisp implementation took 10.2 CPU seconds, and spawned 1,028,546
tasks, without breaking! This is a new record for us. This works out
to roughly 80 microseconds per task.
-dan
∂31-Aug-88 1624 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu IBM - RT
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Aug 88 16:24:12 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA03727; Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:23:31 PDT
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 16:23:31 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8808312323.AA03727@athena.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: IBM - RT
John,
Did you and Tom Binford ever get together on whether or not your RT
would fit his needs, or do I still need to try to find a home for it?
I have no particular ideas - just following up.
George
∂31-Aug-88 1701 VAL Reproduction fees
You wanted to know which publishers do not allow you to reproduce your papers
in your book without paying fees. The answer is:
1. Ellis Horwood, $10 per printed page for reproducing material from "Machine
Intelligence".
2. North-Holland, $10 per printed page for reproducing material from AI Journal.
∂31-Aug-88 2119 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Energy Question: What ever happened to SOLAR?
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Aug 88 21:19:32 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 31 Aug 88 21:17:30 PDT
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 21:17:30 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Energy Question: What ever happened to SOLAR?
JMC, thanks for the info on SOLAR. AAAS membership with weekly SCIENCE
is one the best deals around!
-helen
∂01-Sep-88 0036 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 00:35:55 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 1 Sep 88 00:33:52 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 00:33:52 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Hi there, how are you? I'm a member of AAAS so I have a huge
and growing stack of unread SCIENCE issues. Do you get it through
e-mail?
Would you like to "do lunch" sometime?
-helen
∂01-Sep-88 0741 GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu test message. John: still trying. If this gets to you, I'll try the
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 07:41:03 PDT
Received: from mis.arizona.edu (misvax.mis.arizona.edu) by labrea.stanford.edu with TCP; Thu, 1 Sep 88 07:38:41 PDT
Message-Id: <8809011438.AA09241@labrea.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 07:23 MST
From: GOODMAN@mis.arizona.edu
Subject: test message. John: still trying. If this gets to you, I'll try the
Soviet material ye
To: jmc%sail@labrea.stanford.edu
X-Vms-To: IN%"<jmc%sail@labrea.stanford.edu>"
From: UACCIT::POSTMASTER 25-AUG-1988 16:04
To: UAMIS::GOODMAN,POSTMASTER
Subj: returned mail from sail.stanford
I am not sure why mail is not successfully reaching sail,
as it is a registered host on the internet stanford domain.
Try using one of these addresses, addressing mail c/o
a name server:
in%"<jms%sail@labrea.stanford.edu>"
or in%"<jms%sail@argus.stanford.edu>"
I am in touch with Joel Snyder about updating information
for our mailer.
Regards,
Postmaster nee Alma Grijalva-Langley UA Telecommunications
∂01-Sep-88 0801 JMC
val and air at 10
∂01-Sep-88 0906 MPS Paycheck
To: sloan@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Yvette
Arkady Rabinov did not receive a paycheck on the 22nd of August as
his pay line ended on July 31, 1988.
Professor McCarthy asked that I check into this. I called Payroll
but they said it had to be initiated with the department.
Arkady would like to receive the paycheck for the 22nd as soon as
possible.
Thanks.
Pat
∂01-Sep-88 0910 THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU Position Paper
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 09:10:25 PDT
Received: ID <THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU.#Internet>; Thu 1 Sep 88 12:09:08-EDT
Date: Thu 1 Sep 88 12:09:07-EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Position Paper
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: thomason@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <12427112742.8.THOMASON@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
I have a worried publisher. Could you let me know what the
status of this project is?
Thanks,
--Rich
-------
∂01-Sep-88 0932 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 09:32:37 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 1 Sep 88 09:30:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 09:30:31 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: reply to message
Hey ok. Tuesdays are good for me. How about next Tuesday?
As for places, that's open. I'm curious about the El Dorado Cafe
in downtown Palo Alto (heard it's good, but haven't been).
Or something Gatehouse-like (but not the Gatehouse...I don't like
their food all that much).
-helen
∂01-Sep-88 1001 MPS phone call
Jack Cate - 321-1225
∂01-Sep-88 1031 pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU letter of reference?
Received: from boulder.Colorado.EDU ([128.138.238.18]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 10:31:14 PDT
Return-Path: <pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Received: by boulder.Colorado.EDU (cu.grandpoobah.052088)
Received: by sigi.colorado.edu (cu.generic.041888)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 11:29:35 MDT
From: Paul Smolensky <pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809011729.AA25101@sigi.colorado.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: letter of reference?
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
This message is to inquire if you would be willing to write a letter
evaluating my research as part of a major review of my progress. The
immediate cause of this review is a contract renewal -- I have been an
asst. prof. at Colorado now for three years. If the outside letters
for this review warrant it, then I may be put up for tenure next year.
Colorado is extremely reluctant to grant tenure before the 7th year,
which is now 3 years away. For this reason we are soliciting a number
and breadth of outside letters comparable to that for a tenure review.
An official solicitation of a letter, together with some representative
publications, will be sent to you if you think at this point that you
might be willing to write a letter. I realize that you are extremely
busy, and that you may not feel sufficiently familiar with my work, so
before such an official letter is drafted I thought I'd try a more
informal channel on which it might be easier to say "no."
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Paul Smolensky
∂01-Sep-88 1207 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU RE: A million processes in 10 seconds
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 12:07:52 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05452; Thu, 1 Sep 88 12:05:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 12:05:23 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809011905.AA05452@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: RE: A million processes in 10 seconds
I ran the experiment again this morning, when there was no contention
for the machine. The experiment ran in 9.05 (parallel) cpu seconds
instead of 10.2, spawning 1,028,456 tasks. If you subtract out the
time for the actual computation of (Fibonacci 28), then the spawning
and scheduling overhead per process is 61 (serial) cpu microseconds.
A user defined function call tends to require about 9 or 10
microseconds.
Throughout the computation, there were less than 224 (tree-depth times
number-of-processors) processes active at any moment. The shells
get reused from a statically allocated pool.
Boyer Benchmark now speeds up by a factor of 6 (10 seconds serial, 1.6
seconds parallel) with 13435 spawns when using the dynamic spawning
predicate and by a factor of 4.5 (2.2 seconds parallel) with 91644
spawns when spawning at every oppurtunity in the rewriter. The OR
parallelism in REWRITE-WITH-LEMMAS is not yet used.
Would facts like these help get us more funding?
-dan
∂01-Sep-88 1222 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 12:22:36 PDT
Received: from Ignorant.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05485; Thu, 1 Sep 88 12:20:14 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 12:20 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: meeting
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <19880901192056.4.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
The next meeting will be held wednesday, Sept 7 in MJH 301 at noon. Dan
will talk about his scheduler.
C U there.
∂01-Sep-88 1422 schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 14:22:27 PDT
Received: from KSL-1186-1.STANFORD.EDU by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:22:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:18:42 PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
To: William Chops Westfield <BILLW@score.stanford.edu>
Cc: JMC@sail
Message-Id: <619121074.A0935.KSL-1186-1.schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <12426917665.36.BILLW@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Warren T. Brooks had a table in last Saturday's business section in
the Chronicle which broke down total income tax revenue by household income
for several time intervals. The most recent data are from '86 which Brooks
says is the last year for which sufficient data are available. The thrust of
the article is that inflation is the main tax the bottom 50 percentile pays,
hence the Reagan years have been much kinder to this bracket than the Carter
years. Brooks rehashes this article with slightly new data every few months.
--Christopher
∂01-Sep-88 1428 MPS Paycheck
Yvette needs to know what the payline for Arkady will be.
She needs to send in another PAF form to payroll. Thanks.
Pat
∂01-Sep-88 1453 VAL NSF proposal
Do we want to include Arkady? If yes, is July 1989 a realistic starting date?
I was thinking about the overall structure of the proposal, and came up with
the following plan:
1. Introduction
2. Mathematical logic in AI
3. Recent results of the logic approach
3.1. Relation between nonmonotonic formalisms
3.2. Relation of nonmonotonic formalisms to logic programming
3.3. Automation of nonmonotonic reasoning
3.4 Inheritance systems
3.5. Reasoning about the effects of actions
3.6. Diagnostic reasoning
3.7. Reasoning about knowledge
4. Proposed work on nonmonotonic reasoning
4.1. Introspective circumscription
4.2. Ramification problem
4.3. Creating and destroying objects
4.4. Concurrent actions
4.5. Continuous time and continuous actions
4.6. Strategies
5. Proposed work on other aspects of the logic approach
5.1 Formalization of contexts
5.2. Mental situations
5.3. Heuristics
5.4. General-purpose database of common sense
Does this look reasonable?
∂01-Sep-88 1504 BILLW@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 15:04:16 PDT
Date: 1 Sep 1988 15:03-PDT
Sender: BILLW@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: beakdown of Tax income by income...
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@Score.Stanford.edu>
To: schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
Cc: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <[SCORE.STANFORD.EDU] 1-Sep-88 15:03:35.BILLW>
In-Reply-To: <619121074.A0935.KSL-1186-1.schmidt@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Hmm, I never thought of inflation as being a Tax. I guess it is
possible to do so...
BillW
∂01-Sep-88 1506 lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov Re: Special Initiative on Coordination Theory and Technology
Received: from note.nsf.gov by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 15:06:24 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
cc: lrosenberg@note.nsf.gov, faculty@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU,
reddy@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Special Initiative on Coordination Theory and Technology
In-reply-to: Your message of 28 Aug 88 13:51:00 -0700.
<#Zrqp@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 88 17:48:46 -0400
From: Laurence Rosenberg <lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov>
Message-ID: <8809011748.aa11648@note.note.nsf.gov>
Dear John,
Thanks for your Email message of 8/29/88 informing me of your
interest in knowing more about our special initiative on
coordination theory and technology. Also, it is nice to have your
confirmation that the brochure announcing the initiative has, in
fact, been received by many in the research community.
I would be delighted if you would consider applying for one of
these grants. If you decide to so do, I can assure you that your
fear that it will not compete fairly is totally unfounded. In
reality, the proposal will have the chance to compete against all
others coming to the Information Technology and Organizations
Program, since as the initiative brochure clearly states, awards
will be contingent on the quality of proposals as well as the
availability of funds. The panel judging this competition is in
addition to the normal peer review, and thus offers an extra
protection to insure that only proposals of high scientific merit
will win awards.
Copies of your inquiry to me were sent to all the Stanford Faculty
and to and address at CMU. But, many others have also worked to
develop the ideas reflected in this initiative. Over the past two
years there have been three major workshops on this topic, many
conferences where these ideas were presented, as well as less
formal discussions among interested scholars. There is a real
excitement and interest in what we have called "coordination
theory and technology." The scholars involved in these efforts
have convinced us that it is appropriate to stimulate multi.disciplinary research on the topics described in the brochure.
Drafts of the brochure itself were seen, and contributions to it
made, by many people in the relevant scientific communities..including colleagues of yours at Stanford Computer Science
Department, and by NSF advisory committees and management.
I will get back to you very soon with the other information you
wanted. Thanks again,
Larry
∂01-Sep-88 1510 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: reply to message
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 1 Sep 88 15:10:50 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 1 Sep 88 15:08:39 PDT
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 15:08:39 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: reply to message
Ok, see you then and there!
-helen
∂01-Sep-88 1754 RFC Prancing Pony Bill
Prancing Pony bill of JMC John McCarthy 1 September 1988
Previous Balance 4.00
Monthly Interest at 1.0% 0.04
Current Charges 4.00 (bicycle lockers)
-------
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 8.04
PAYMENT DELIVERY LOCATION: CSD Receptionist.
Make checks payable to: STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
Please deliver payments to the Computer Science Dept receptionist, Jacks Hall.
To ensure proper crediting, please include your PONY ACCOUNT NAME on your check.
Note: The recording of a payment takes up to three weeks after the payment is
made, but never beyond the next billing date. Please allow for this delay.
Bills are payable upon presentation. Interest of 1.0% per month will be
charged on balances remaining unpaid 25 days after bill date above.
An account with a credit balance earns interest of .33% per month,
based on the average daily balance.
Your last Pony payment was recorded on 7/12/88.
Accounts with balances remaining unpaid for more than 55 days are
considered delinquent and are subject to reduction of credit limit.
Please pay your bill and keep your account current.
∂02-Sep-88 0600 JMC
Judith Goldstein at Regis-McKenna
∂02-Sep-88 1012 @RELAY.CS.NET:masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp Re: Lisp calculator
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 10:11:57 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa16397; 2 Sep 88 11:17 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id aa07223; 2 Sep 88 10:58 EDT
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Fri, 2 Sep 88 23:56:00 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs02) with TCP; Fri, 2 Sep 88 23:57:41 JST
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 23:57:41 JST
From: Masahiko Sato <masahiko@nuesun.ntt.jp>
Message-Id: <8809021457.AA05086@MECL.NTT.jp>
To: JMC%sail.stanford.edu@ntt.jp
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 25 Aug 88 2127 PDT <gXbg9@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lisp calculator
>>I would be glad to receive the calculator in Kyoto assuming Casio clears it
>>with the Inamori Foundation, whose guest I will be and with whom
>>I have agreed to clear any scheduled events. Most likely, I will come
Casio and the Inamori Foundation discussed this and solved it
positively. Two or three Casio engineers will meet you in Kyoto and
will present a Lisp calculator to you.
Casio was kind enough to give me a Japanese model and I received it
yesterday. I found it very interesting. I am not a Lisp programmer,
but most of the Lisp functions I know seem to be available. It also
has a Lisp editor.
masahiko
∂02-Sep-88 1113 VAL nsf proposal
In the introduction you promise to say something about the current scientific
situation in AI. Do you have any materials for that part?
∂02-Sep-88 1652 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 16:45:36 PDT
Date: Fri 2 Sep 88 16:44:58-PDT
From: Yvette Sloan <SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Oxz9u@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12427457872.30.SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
10/1/88 - coterminous w/funding
-------
∂02-Sep-88 1658 CLT shankar
To: JMC, JK
His visa expired in July and has been extended to Oct 89
So I think you (jmc) can go ahead and talk to him as
soon as you can.
∂02-Sep-88 1720 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Keller use of Alliant
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 17:20:12 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00940; Fri, 2 Sep 88 17:18:02 PDT
Message-Id: <8809030018.AA00940@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Keller use of Alliant
In-Reply-To: Your message of 02 Sep 88 16:52:00 -0700.
<13xzdi@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 88 17:17:59 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Arthur proposed paying 1/4 of my RA appointment, which comes to about
$375/month including benefits etc. This seems fair enough to me,
since I don't expect this will be much of a burden at all; I'll
probably spend a couple of hours getting his people started on the
system, and then they can work on their own.
We are still allowing free guest usage by others (mostly N.A. people).
They also have minimal impact on the system but perhaps we could get
them to contribute towards its maintenance. However, I suspect that
most will just stop using the system if we do this, so maybe it isn't
worth the effort.
∂02-Sep-88 1747 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU IBM RT
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 17:47:42 PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA05371; Fri, 2 Sep 88 17:41:24 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 17:41:24 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8809030041.AA05371@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: IBM RT
John
I am interested in knowing more.
Is there a more recent RT? Is this one
reasonably powerful or obsolete?
How do we find out whether it can be transferred
to me?
Tom
∂02-Sep-88 1748 binford@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU Talcott's thesis
Received: from Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 17:48:44 PDT
Received: by Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA05374; Fri, 2 Sep 88 17:42:24 PDT
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 17:42:24 PDT
From: binford@Boa-Constrictor.stanford.edu (Tom Binford)
Message-Id: <8809030042.AA05374@Boa-Constrictor.Stanford.EDU.stanford.edu>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Talcott's thesis
John
I am reading Carolyn's thesis. Interesting.
Tom
∂02-Sep-88 1949 BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU Summary of August computer charges.
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 19:49:24 PDT
Date: Fri 2 Sep 88 19:46:01-PDT
From: Billing Editor <BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Summary of August computer charges.
To: MCCARTHY@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12427490830.10.BEDIT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Following is a summary of your computer charges for August.
Account System Billed Pct Cpu Job Disk Print Adj Total
JMC SAIL 2-DMA705T 100 343.40 250.84 ***.** 7.20 5.00 2683.03
MCCARTHY SCORE 2-DMA705T 100 .00 .00 31.54 .00 5.00 36.54
jmc LABREA 2-DMA705 100 .00 .00 78.45 .00 5.00 83.45
Total: 343.40 250.84 ***.** 7.20 15.00 2803.02
University budget accounts billed above include the following.
Account Principal Investigator Title
2-DMA705 McCarthy N00039-84-C-0211
The preceding statement is a condensed version of the detailed summary sheet
sent monthly to your department.
Please verify each month that the proper university budget accounts are paying
for your computer usage. Please also check the list of account numbers below
the numeric totals. If the organizations/people associated with that account
number should NOT be paying for your computer time, send mail to BEDIT@SCORE.
Please direct questions/comments to BEDIT@SCORE.
-------
∂02-Sep-88 1954 pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU re: letter of reference?
Received: from boulder.Colorado.EDU ([128.138.238.18]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Sep 88 19:53:58 PDT
Return-Path: <pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Received: by boulder.Colorado.EDU (cu.grandpoobah.052088)
Received: by sigi.colorado.edu (cu.generic.041888)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 88 20:52:41 MDT
From: Paul Smolensky <pauls@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809030252.AA08695@sigi.colorado.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: letter of reference?
Prof. McCarthy,
Your offer to serve as a reference is extremely generous and your conditions
are perfect. You will be sent a letter and some papers, and if you should
decide that you don't after all find the papers of sufficient interest or
have sufficient time, it will of course be no problem for you to decide not
to serve.
Thank you very much!
-- Paul Smolensky
∂02-Sep-88 2108 CLT Keller use of Alliant
Another thing you might try to get paid for is the maintenance
contract -- which is close to 3k a month.
∂04-Sep-88 0708 ARK Happy Birthday
To: JMC
CC: ARK
...and many more, I'm sure!
Arthur
∂04-Sep-88 0924 DEK happy b'day
Carolyn tells me we might become neighbors. That would be neat.
∂04-Sep-88 1032 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Computer Science Library Committee
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 88 10:32:36 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA19572; Sun, 4 Sep 88 10:27:35 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 88 10:27:35 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8809041727.AA19572@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: LASHER@Score.stanford.edu
Cc: lasher@Score.stanford.edu, jmc@sail, wheaton@athena
In-Reply-To: Rebecca Lasher's message of Mon 29 Aug 88 08:59:51-PDT <12426324623.33.LASHER@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Computer Science Library Committee
Rebecca,
Both John McCarthy and George Wheaton would be able to serve on the
NWC Libary committee. I'll leave it to you to contact them directly
about what's up. -Nils
∂04-Sep-88 1145 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU Happy Birthday
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 88 11:45:44 PDT
Date: Sun 4 Sep 88 11:45:10-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Happy Birthday
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12427927583.10.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Hope your birthday is a very special one.
Best wishes,
Carolyn
-------
∂04-Sep-88 1538 VAL
Happy birthday, John!
∂04-Sep-88 1625 JK EDI
I wrote the very first draft for the EDI proposal, just to get a
rough scoping of the ideas; it needs a lot material to make it
reasonable. The reason to put out anything in this crude shape is
to get yours and Konsynski's reactions. I hope to be able show it
to him this coming week when I am Boston.
The file is paper.txt[1,jk].
∂04-Sep-88 2056 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU report
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 88 20:56:16 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 88 20:54 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: report
To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880905035428.5.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
I left a revised copy on your door together with the form you need to
sign in order for it to get published. I think the bugs we discussed
have been fixed...
Igor
∂04-Sep-88 2231 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: lack of prosperity
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 88 22:31:14 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 88 22:26:50 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: lack of prosperity
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <7yvxT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12428044394.12.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I'll agree with you about the need for more rational
environmentalism to a point. I can't agree about nuclear
power, but I can agree that the anti-growth advocates are
the enemies of affordable housing. They are the sort of
ultra-conservatives I detest more than any other. There
is a difference between intelligently planned growth,
uncontrolled growth (e.g. Tokyo), and suppression of growth
(e.g. Palo Alto). Only the first is desirable.
I also agree about the need for more engineers and
fewer lawyers. Personally, I recommend lining 95% of them
against the wall. Thanks to lawyers, I am in the final
stage of financial ruin. In a month's time, I will be
leaving California and perhaps the United States. I will
not return.
-------
∂04-Sep-88 2326 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Happy birthday
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 4 Sep 88 23:26:11 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07889; Sun, 4 Sep 88 23:23:57 PDT
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 88 23:23:57 PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809050623.AA07889@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Happy birthday
and many happy returns (whatever they are).
Ramin
∂05-Sep-88 0600 JMC
Regis-McKenna
∂05-Sep-88 0600 JMC
finish floor
∂05-Sep-88 2304 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Ok, see you then!
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Sep 88 23:04:06 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 5 Sep 88 23:01:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 23:01:31 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Ok, see you then!
-h
∂05-Sep-88 2333 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Wednesday Qlisp Meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 Sep 88 23:33:05 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09835; Mon, 5 Sep 88 23:30:45 PDT
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 23:30:45 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809060630.AA09835@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: rpg@sail, jmc@sail
Subject: Wednesday Qlisp Meeting
Are you coming to the meeting Wednesday? I'd like some criticism of
the modified qlisp that I've been working on. If you can't be there,
I'd still like to talk to you about it.
In my version, a function call is the right size for a process. In
one experiment, I spawned 150,000,000 million processes in less than
half an hour. Creating and scheduling these processes creates no
garbage beyond whatever garbage the user program creates.
Dan
∂06-Sep-88 0600 JMC
regis, finish floor
∂06-Sep-88 0840 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 08:40:18 PDT
Date: Tue 6 Sep 88 08:39:37-PDT
From: Yvette Sloan <SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: reply to message
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <kxziB@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12428418092.26.SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
O.K., thanks.
--Yvette
-------
∂06-Sep-88 0900 JMC
kornberg
∂06-Sep-88 1258 loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu Re: NSF waste [sic]
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 12:58:02 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Tue, 6 Sep 88 12:56:03 PDT
Received: by loire.. (3.2/SMI-3.2)
id AA04678; Tue, 6 Sep 88 10:07:06 PDT
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 10:07:06 PDT
From: Terry Winograd <loire!winograd@labrea.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8809061707.AA04678@loire..>
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: NSF waste [sic]
Cc: lrosenberg@note.nsf.gov
John,
I was amused by your vehement reaction to the NSF announcement. I am
one of the people who has talked with Larry about the program, and I
would be glad to discuss with you the relevance and importance of the
topic. I am pleased with the initiative he has taken to bring it to
people's attention.
It seems that when DARPA earmarks $400 Million for "Strategic Computing"
or even for neural networks, you accept it as business as usual, but
that when NSF suggests spending a fraction of a percent of that amount
on a specified program you are outraged. One of the long-term
complaints about NSF funding has been that it is not based on a
coherent idea of what is worth doing, but tends to be randomly
distributed according to what comes across the desk. You may disagree
with the specific content here (in fact, that is obviously what the
problem is), but do you really think it is wrong for NSF to think about
what research is worth encouraging?
--t
∂06-Sep-88 1300 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: MDA telethon
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 13:00:21 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01133; Tue, 6 Sep 88 12:57:41 PDT
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 12:57:41 PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809061957.AA01133@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: su-etc@score
Subject: Re: MDA telethon
Cc: ilan@score, jmc@sail
I agree with JMC's point, however it does not apply to the MDA
telethon. For example the technologies that JMC mentions were
promising enough to get their own funding (e.g. venture capital).
In the end they were acountable either to the free market or to their
own correctness. In the case of MDA we see research which is
asking the average person for money. It's clear that governemental
organizations have more knowledge than the ordinary citizen about what
is relevant research--especially when the fund drive fails to mention
the work being done and its accomplishments.
∂06-Sep-88 1311 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [Arthur Keller: Alliant maintenance ]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 13:10:58 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01182; Tue, 6 Sep 88 13:08:31 PDT
Message-Id: <8809062008.AA01182@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Subject: [Arthur Keller: Alliant maintenance ]
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 88 13:08:29 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Here is ARK's reply:
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02939; Sat, 3 Sep 88 10:23:47 PDT
Message-Id: <qy9pX@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 03 Sep 88 1025 PDT
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Alliant maintenance
To: weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
∂03-Sep-88 0024 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Alliant maintenance
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Sep 88 00:23:54 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02082; Sat, 3 Sep 88 00:21:43 PDT
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 88 00:21:43 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809030721.AA02082@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: ark@sail
Subject: Alliant maintenance
Would you be willing to use your computer budget to pay for part of
the Alliant maintenance contract (which costs us over $3000/month), as
well as supporting me as we discussed?
ARK - I'd be willing to pay for 1/4 of you (that is 1/8 FTE) plus
$150/month towards maintenance plus $50/month to cover any print, etc.,
charges we incur. This will have to be renegotiated once you stop being a
student, however. This comes to about $600/month (not including
overhead), or a little less than 20% of your monthly costs. I expect that
will use rather less than 20% of the machine. OK?
Arthur
------- End of Forwarded Message
∂06-Sep-88 1553 BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU Chapter conclusions?
Received: from A.ISI.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 15:52:38 PDT
Date: Tue 6 Sep 88 17:06:58-EDT
From: Marjory Blumenthal <BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Chapter conclusions?
To: gannon%rdvax.dec@decwrl.dec.com, dongarra@anl-mcs.arpa,
hearn@rand-unix.arpa, jmc@sail.stanford.edu, ouster@ginger.berkeley.edu,
ralston@mcc.com, CWeissman@dockmaster.arpa, troywil@ibm.com
Message-ID: <12428477685.19.BLUMENTHAL@A.ISI.EDU>
The draft has been substantially edited and will be sent to reviewers on
Thursday. We now exceed 425 pages... It has been suggested that we
clarify the tech assessments by having conclusions for each chapter.
To do that, we need statements that are supported in each chapter as well as
supported by at least most of the committee. Below are candidates for your
consideration. Based on your response I will edit and use them this week or
continue to work on them with you or trash them. You will get a complete
copy at the time it goes out for review.
ANY INPUTS MUST BE RECEIVED ASAP. Our fax # is 202/334-2854.
For the record, I tried to transmit the items below starting this weekend
but was hampered by net problems.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -1-
09/05/1988
HARDWARE
Advances in hardware from semiconductor devices through machines
of varying sizes and levels of performance continue to be rapid, with
significant improvements in performance taking place in periods from
one to three years. This phenomenon triggers the trickling down of
increasing capabilities to computers of various sizes and other
computer-controlled devices.
Non-leading edge components and small machines (personal
computers) have become commodities--they are cheap and widely
available within CoCom and other non-CMEA countries, especially
newly-industrializing countries in the Far East.
Advances in hardware emanate from theory and basic research widely
available through the open scientific literature. However, innovation
and production strengths depend on the ability to implement new ideas,
and that ability requires experience and access to state-of-the-art
facilities and infrastructure.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -2-
09/05/1988
High-performance computing is increasingly possible from smaller
machines and clusters of smaller machines as well as larger
supercomputers. This trend will make high-performance computing
increasingly accessible and therefore deserving of greater scrutiny in
terms of technology transfer policy. It also raises questions about
the structure of effective control efforts.
Supercomputers are a critical technology, and acquisition of only
one could have a major impact on a user country. The requirement of
these machines for ongoing, labor-intensive support diminishes the
value of a possible theft. Nevertheless, it is prudent to protect
against improper disposal of these machines.
The risks of diversion in place among CoCom countries may be
overstated. This presents a problem for U.S. vendors, who are subject
to especially stringent enforcement of regulations covering the
installation and operation of these machines.
The commoditization of hardware makes software increasingly
important, both to achieve the full benefit of advances in hardware
and in terms of the value of a computer system.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -3-
09/05/1988
The United States is a leading innovator in many types of
hardware, but production leadership is held by or shared with Japan
and other countries for commodity hardware and certain other types of
hardware.
SOFTWARE
A major development has been the emergence of commodity software
associated with the proliferation of PCs. Commodity software is cheap
and widely available through retail channels.
Software is less amenable to breakthroughs than hardware, but
major advances are needed in software for parallel architectures.
Software development is becoming more systematized and more like
hardware development with software components, standardization of
interfaces, and improvements in tools that partially automate the
development process.
The United States is a world leader in software. One reason
appears to be the favorable environment for the small-scale, creative
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -4-
09/05/1988
and entrepreneurial efforts that most often lead to software
innovation.
Software is intrinsically difficult to protect because it is easy
to carry and to copy. However, large packages for large systems, in
particular, may be less valuable to a thief than to a purchaser
because of the lack of reliable access to vendor support, maintenance,
and upgrades.
In some cases the usefulness of stolen software may be limited
through restrictions on the distribution of source code, which is
necessary for modifying software.
The committee divided software into three principal classes for
purposes of control efforts. The first is software with a compelling
and direct military usefulness to CMEA countries, for which exports
should be tightly controlled. The second is software tools that could
be used to build software of compelling military significance, for
which some degree of control appears necessary (see discussion
infra). The third includes all other software, which should be freely
traded within the West.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -5-
09/05/1988
MANUFACTURING
State-of-the-art manufacturing equipment and electronic
computer-aided design systems are the key to manufacturing
state-of-the-art integrated circuits. Major changes in IC technology
give rise to changes cascading throughout the manufacturing process.
The United States is increasingly dependent on Japan for
semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Both Japanese and Western
European countries are leaders in certain aspects of packaging.
COMPUTER NETWORKS
Networking epitomizes the dual-use nature of computer technology.
It serves as the backbone of modern military command and control
systems as well as commercial office and factory automation systems.
Standards, particularly international standards, increasingly
drive the development of network products. In the United States,
product development is affected by a split between DOD-favored
standards and international, commercial standards. This split has
adversely affected U.S. company positions in network markets.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: DO NOT COPY, QUOTE OR CITE L&F -6-
09/05/1988
Further study is needed to address a host of network-related
issues, including security and control of access to U.S. and
international research networks, transborder flows of computer and
communications technologies via networks, and special trade
regulations.
-------
∂06-Sep-88 1924 RWF dinner
Let's talk; I'm at 3-1565.
∂06-Sep-88 2343 rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU All that I know about Tweety
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 Sep 88 23:43:33 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03265; Tue, 6 Sep 88 23:41:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 23:41:12 PDT
From: Ramin Zabih <rdz@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809070641.AA03265@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: All that I know about Tweety
I've thought a bit more about this, and discovered (or more likely
re-discovered) some problems. We should chat about it the next time
I'm over at Stanford when you are around...
Ramin
∂07-Sep-88 0800 JMC
ql meeting
∂07-Sep-88 0800 JMC
Pullen 694-5051
∂07-Sep-88 0842 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU new accounts
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Sep 88 08:42:53 PDT
Date: Wed 7 Sep 88 08:42:00-PDT
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: new accounts
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: clt@Sail.Stanford.EDU, mps@Sail.Stanford.EDU, bscott@Score.Stanford.EDU,
bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU, littell@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12428680669.28.BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, Here are the account numbers for your four new tasks
under the Umbrella contract, N00039-84-C-0211:
Task 16 -- "Artificial Intelligence and Formal Reasoning"
Total amt. of agreement: $1,194,586 for period 8/30/88-8/30/91
This award: $300,000 for period 8/30/88-4/30/89
Account number: 2-DMA804
Fund number: 187X077
Task 17 -- "Common Prototyping Language"
Total amt. of agreement: $333,132 for period 8/30/88-2/28/90
This award: $85,000 for period 8/30/88-1/30/89
Account number: 2-DMA805
Fund number: 187X078
Task 19 -- "QLISP for Parallel Processors"
Total amt. of agreement: $199,924 for period 8/30/88-11/30/88
Account number: 2-DMA807
Fund number: 187X080
Task 20 -- "MTC"
Total amt. of agreement: $88,699 for period 8/30/88-12/30/88
Account number: 2-DMA808
Fund number: 187X081
-Sharon Bergman
-------
∂07-Sep-88 0900 JMC
repair floor
∂07-Sep-88 0921 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM mathematickle
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Sep 88 09:20:57 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 318067; Wed 7-Sep-88 12:19:25 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 70197; Wed 7-Sep-88 01:57:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 01:55 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: mathematickle
To: macsyma-i@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM, mlb@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <19880907085503.0.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
bcc: "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
As Salamin expected, Mathematica's Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,z] cannot handle
z near cis(π/3), and simply never returns for z smack on. This is presumably
because they range-reduced via the anharmonic group of six "linear"
transformations, which all leave cis(π/3) on the unit circle.
Thus, e.g., Mathematica cannot numerically check that Hypergeometric2F1[1,1,2,cis(π/3)]
is π cis(π/6)/3. (See also Abramowitz and Stegun, 15.1.31.)
The following takes m terms of a 3by3 matrix product, and converges at about
2 bits/term for |z|≤1, |carg z|≥π/6. Convergence of 1 bit/term extends out to
|z|≤2.
H2F1(A,B,C,Z,M):=
VPRUD(MATRIX([(K+A)*(K+B)*(K+C-B-A)*Z↑2/(4*(K+1)*(K+C/2)*(K+C+(1-C)/2)*(Z-1)),
-A*B*(K+A)*(K+B)*Z↑2/(4*(K+1)*(K+C/2)*(K+C+(1-C)/2)*(Z-1)),
((K+C)*((-C-B-A)*Z+3*C)+(-(-B-A)*C-A*B)*Z+(K+C)↑2*(Z-2)-C↑2)/(2*(K+C/2)*(Z-1))],
[(K+A)*(K+B)*Z/(4*(K+1)*(K+C/2)*(K+C+(1-C)/2)),(K+A)*(K+B)*(K+C)*Z/(4*(K+1)*(K+C/2)*(K+C+(1-C)/2)),1],
[0,0,1]),
K,0,M)[2,1]$
/* Right column of matrix product M(A) M(A+1) ... M(B)*/
VPRUD(M,N,A,B):=IF A > B+1 THEN VPRUD(SUBST(A+B-N,N,INVERT(M)),N,B+1,A-1)
ELSE BLOCK([X:EMATRIX(LENGTH(M),1,1,LENGTH(M),1)],
FOR %1 FROM B STEP -1 THRU A DO X:RECTFORM(SUBST(%1,N,M) . X),
X)$
It would be interesting to know how "the pros" handle the cis(π/3) case.
I wish I had tried z>1 (shadow of the branchpoint) to see what Mathematica does.
Some of the "linear" transformations require evaluation at z=1 exactly,
which has a closed form in gamma functions. But this is slow for complex
a, b, and c. I have a 3 bits/term series for that case (which includes the
complex Beta function). I forget whether or not I gave it to Wolfram. The
(reasonably hip) Livermoids for whom I built it tried to get me to write it
up, but it won't be out 'til Jenks publishes his July 86 Conference proceedings.
∂07-Sep-88 0937 MPS
To: JMC
CC: CLT
I became ill at work and had to go home. Hope to see
you tomorrow.
Pat
∂07-Sep-88 1354 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GC is easier with a Zero Garbage Scheduler!?
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Sep 88 13:54:24 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04830; Wed, 7 Sep 88 13:52:01 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 13:52:01 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809072052.AA04830@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Cc: pehoushek@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: GC is easier with a Zero Garbage Scheduler!?
In talking with Igor and Joe, we noted that a scheduler in which
spawning and running processes creates zero garbage can greatly ease
some of the problems in writing a parallel garbage collector.
Lucid is very protective of their GC code, and justifiably so. I'd
like to get a peek at it, however. If it is highly functional, then
it should be easy to parallelize, using my scheduler.
Would you ask Dick to let me look at it? For Lucid to maintain
ownership of a parallel GC that I might implement, maybe I'd have to
be a consultant? I wouldn't mind that. What do you think about this?
I'll look at Arkady's Polynomial GCD code and I promise to get some
significantly better results by Monday at the latest. -Dan
∂07-Sep-88 1406 CLT
pullen???
∂07-Sep-88 1620 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Reading list
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Sep 88 16:20:35 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA08747; Wed, 7 Sep 88 16:19:55 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 16:19:55 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8809072319.AA08747@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 07 Sep 88 1538 PDT <1W#s$q@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Reading list
John,
I would like to learn more about Symbolic Systems as a subject, and
I've followed the evolution of the reading list. Would Dennett's book
be a good starting point?
George
∂07-Sep-88 1626 wheaton@athena.stanford.edu Reading list
Received: from athena.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 7 Sep 88 16:26:52 PDT
Received: by athena.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA08756; Wed, 7 Sep 88 16:26:10 PDT
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 16:26:10 PDT
From: wheaton@athena.stanford.edu (George Wheaton)
Message-Id: <8809072326.AA08756@athena.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 07 Sep 88 1623 PDT <13#tJs@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Reading list
Thanks. I may save that one 'till later.
gw
∂08-Sep-88 0800 JMC
pullen 5051
∂08-Sep-88 0804 TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU re: Bush's Error
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 88 08:04:42 PDT
Date: Thu 8 Sep 88 08:03:56-PDT
From: Carolyn Tajnai <TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Bush's Error
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <7#tfM@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12428935883.15.TAJNAI@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, I agree with you in your assessment of Bush on this slip.
Most of us around our age, will never forget Pearl Harbor, and will
also remember where we were when we heard the news.
Carolyn
-------
∂08-Sep-88 1001 ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu Re: Taxes
Received: from Portia.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 88 10:01:25 PDT
Received: by Portia.stanford.edu (5.54/inc-1.2)
id AA04789; Thu, 8 Sep 88 09:59:29 PDT
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 09:59:29 PDT
From: ddaniel@Portia.stanford.edu (D. Daniel Sternbergh)
Message-Id: <8809081659.AA04789@Portia.stanford.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Taxes
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <q#BSK@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Many thanks. Having paid VAT for all the time I lived in England I
never once figured out what it was supposed to be! It sounds complex,
but worth it. I also like the idea, philosophically, of taxing the
creation of wealth rather than having the government entitle itself to
a cut every time two people complete a transaction.
Daniel
∂08-Sep-88 1042 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU GCD
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 88 10:42:49 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07798; Thu, 8 Sep 88 10:40:21 PDT
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 10:40:21 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809081740.AA07798@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, air@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Subject: GCD
I added parallelism to the CHINESE routine, and that helped a little.
But, as Igor and Arkady have said, not all that much time is spent in
CHINESE. The real win came when I added parallelism to MOD-RMD, the
polynomial remainder function.
The results on 8 processors indicate that a speed-up of 6.3 can, in
general, be expected. There is still almost 2/3 of a processor
idle-time, so more parallelism needs to be found. The scheduling
overhead is measurable, but small. There is about 1 processor's worth
of CONS contention. If CONS contention is eliminated, I expect we can
get speed-ups better than 7 out of 8.
∂08-Sep-88 1119 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU visit Oct 3,4
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 88 11:18:59 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 8 Sep 88 11:16:29 PDT
From: jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Dieter H. Jundt)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1988 11:16:29 PDT
To: jmc@sail
Cc: jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: visit Oct 3,4
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I am a graduate student in Applied Physics and am writing to you on
behalf of my brother in law who lives and workes in Germany.
His name is Philip Dellafera and he works with the Forschungsinstitut
der Bundespost in Darmstadt, Germany. He is working on User interfaces
for object oriented environment and uses LISP as the primary language.
He visits OOPSLA in San Diego and comes here October 3rd and 4th (Mo,Tue)
to see Stanford. He asked me to arrange some meetings with people
working in the Computer Science Department.
I would be very happy if you could arrange to meet with him one of
these days to discuss topics related to your work (half an hour to one
hour) . Please let me know when it would be convenient for you.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sicerely,
Dieter Jundt
∂08-Sep-88 1200 JMC
Pullen 5051
∂08-Sep-88 1206 VAL Exchange program
To: pat@IMSSS, JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I just received replies to my letters to Russia regarding the exchange program.
Both Kreynovich and Shvarts would like to come for 3 months, and they
think there is a good chance they will be allowed to. (Kreynovich
remarks that perestroika affects the leaders of the nation, but not
necessarily his supervisors at work, who may be reluctant to let him
go. If that happens, he can use his vacation time, but then his visit
would be limited to 1 month.) About the time of the visit Kreynovich
says that the beginning of 1989 would be ideal, because "who knows
what can happen" (which apparently means: who knows for how long
perestroika will last), but otherwise he doesn't care. Shvarts prefers
the fall of 1989, because, he says, the invitation should be received
6 months in advance.
Minc fully supports the idea of inviting Kreynovich and Shvarts, as well as two
other people I asked him about - Zamov and Mikhailov, the logicians from Kazan'
who work on automated reasoning. (Zamov is a more senior person, and Mikhailov
is his former student.) Would you like me to write to them, or would you
rather contact them directly? Or John and I can talk to them in December in
Tallinn (I think they will be there).
Please keep me informed on new developments.
The addresses are:
Dr. V. Ya. Kreynovich
VNIIEP
Pr. Prosveshcheniya 85
Leningrad 195297
USSR
Dr. Grigory Shvarts
Program Systems Institute
Pereslavl-Zalessky 152140
Yaroslavskaya obl.
USSR
Dr. N. K. Zamov and Dr. V. Yu. Mikhailov
Department of Applied Mathematics
Kazan University
Kazan
USSR
- Vladimir
∂08-Sep-88 1232 VAL
Pat says we have "some money" now. Is this THE money?
∂08-Sep-88 1417 VAL Appendices to the NSF proposal
I'd like to include the following:
A. AI needs more emphasis on basic research.
B. Math. logic in AI (main part).
C. Applications of circumscription (without appendices).
D. Formal theories of action.
E. Miracles in formal theories of action (joint with Arkady).
Does this look right?
∂08-Sep-88 1804 @forsythe.stanford.edu:ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET Re: bicycle
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Sep 88 18:04:12 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 8 Sep 88 18:04:13 PDT
Date: 8 Sep 88 18:02 PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: JMC @ SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: bicycle
Date: 8 September 1988, 17:40:18 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: bicycle
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 09/08/88 14:11
Dear John,
I will call to discuss the possibilities.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂09-Sep-88 0900 JMC
better business
∂09-Sep-88 0959 SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 88 09:59:20 PDT
Date: Fri 9 Sep 88 09:58:31-PDT
From: Yvette Sloan <SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <##znw@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12429218887.32.SLOAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
O.K., thanks.
--Yvette
-------
∂09-Sep-88 1014 CLT portland
We have the following reservations.
We have til 5 today to change them, otherwise we are comitted
sf portland sat 24sep (jmc,clt,ttm)
alaska 169 1240-220
port-sj mon 26 (jmc)
alaska 188 1350-330
∂09-Sep-88 1017 MPS
I am picking up that account for you
Pat
∂09-Sep-88 1149 CLT budget
contra[1,clt]/10p
∂09-Sep-88 1343 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Summary of Poly GCD improvements
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 Sep 88 13:43:15 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA03833; Fri, 9 Sep 88 13:40:45 PDT
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 88 13:40:45 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809092040.AA03833@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Summary of Poly GCD improvements
Summary: Using 6 processors or less, the speed-up is nearly optimal.
Using 8 processors, a mixture of Idle time and contention cause speed-ups
of only 6.5. (but a 12-fold speed-up over the orignal serial code.)
I've made several minor improvements to the code. I got rid of any
need for the POOL-HANDLER, made the structure refence funtions macros,
and made another function destructive. The serial code now runs about
twice as fast. With some real programming effort, this code could
greatly speed up in the serial case. How much affect this would have
on the parallel case is not clear.
When using multiple processors, the speed-up is close to optimal when
using from 2 to 6 processors. When using 7 or 8, there is some
measurable CONS contention, and IDLE time, even though I've added some
medium grained parallelism. The major lossage in the original code is
due to IDLE time. The original code only has Top-Level parallelism,
spawning at most a dozen tasks for any individual experiment.
When using 8 processors, I get, in general, speed-ups of 6 to 6.5.
This speed-up is about 12 times Arkady's serial version.
The lossage (in my version) is evenly split between idle-time and CONS
contention. Scheduling overhead on about 1000 tasks is fairly
minimal; there is still some significant idle time and cons
contention, however.
To speed up the serial code, I made mod-up0 destructive. To add
parallelism, I changed the following function:
(defun mod-rmd (first second prime)
(cond ((null first) nil)
((< (le first) (le second)) first)
(t (mod-rmd (mod-add (mod-up0 first (lc second) prime)
(mod-up second
(- (le first) (le second))
(- (lc first))
prime)
prime)
second prime))))
to include parallelism:
(defun mod-rmd (first second prime)
(cond ((null first) nil)
((< (le first) (le second)) first)
(t
;; Because Mod-Up0 is now destructive, need to remeber the first term.
(let ((lefirst (le first))
(lcfirst (lc first)))
(mod-rmd
;; #? says sometimes, spawn a process for potential parallelism.
;; If spawning is called for, the call to mod-up0 is spawned.
#?(mod-add (mod-up0 first (lc second) prime)
(mod-up second
(- lefirst (le second))
(- lcfirst)
prime)
prime)
second prime)))))
#? is basically (QLET (NOT (NSTACK-P)) ...), where NSTACK-P returns
the top of the processor's task stack, or NIL.
Do you want me to continue working on this code? What, if anything,
should I do with it? -dan
∂10-Sep-88 1124 SMC booking
I have finished lising the books on the shelves that had been started but you
did not leave me a note with your priorities after that. I am going to pick up
a contact sheet at K & S and wiil come back here afterward.
∂10-Sep-88 1912 Mailer Re: The Shroud
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Sep 88 19:12:16 PDT
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 88 19:07:23 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Shroud
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: su-etc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <O$zWJ@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12429580949.13.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
That's a difficult bet to accept, JMC, since I'm willing to believe
that significant elements of the Catholic Church, perhaps even a
majority, want the Shroud to be proven a forgery. The possibility
of an authentic Shroud [it can, of course, never be proved authentic]
raises any number of hairy theological issues that the Catholic
Church would rather not address.
However, I would take a modified bet that says that some Christian
sects will continue to believe in the authenticity of the Shroud,
including, perhaps, some Catholics. Is a new Scism in the works?
-------
∂11-Sep-88 0356 Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu JPL Paper
Received: from CAD.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 88 03:56:01 PDT
Date: Sunday, 11 September 1988 06:54:13 EDT
From: Rich.Thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
cc: thomason@cad.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: JPL Paper
Message-ID: <1988.9.11.10.50.41.Rich.Thomason@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU>
John,
If you think that comments might help to get things unstuck
in the position paper you had been writing on what AI needs from
philosophical logic, send me what you have and I'll try to oblige.
--Rich
PS. Note slightly new address. My old machine, C.CS, is being junked.
∂11-Sep-88 0900 JMC
Maalox
∂11-Sep-88 1841 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 88 18:41:11 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac17674; 11 Sep 88 21:39 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ah10884; 11 Sep 88 21:31 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA18937; Mon, 12 Sep 88 08:27:16 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:49:50 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA17458; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:21:43 JST
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00262; Sun, 11 Sep 88 22:46:47 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00285; Sun, 11 Sep 88 17:25:08 jst
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 88 17:25:08 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809110825.AA00285@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: JMC%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Your travel plan
After returning from Stanford and Snowbird I talked with Masahiko,who is now
visiting Martin-Lof.
Both of us are pleased if you and Carolyn are able to come to Sendai before
the ceremony of Kyoto Prize.
If you are able to come to Sendai,Masahiko and I are interested in having a
small seminar on Logic and Computation,having at most 15 people including us.
We will support your travel from Tokyo to Sendai.
If the Inamori Foundation has no objection and you agree,we will plan to have
your lecture at Tohoku University.
{If you will bring Timothy our wives or my daughter will take care of him
while you are visiting the university.}
Please let me know if you are able to come to Sendai.Carolyn knows how to
mail to me. By the way my mail address has been changed as follows:
ito@ito.ecei.tohoku.junet
although the previous mail should work until next August.
Sincerely,
Takayasu Ito
∂11-Sep-88 1841 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 88 18:41:22 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ac17676; 11 Sep 88 21:39 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ai10884; 11 Sep 88 21:32 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA18944; Mon, 12 Sep 88 08:27:21 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:49:53 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA17464; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:21:47 JST
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00271; Sun, 11 Sep 88 22:46:54 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00306; Sun, 11 Sep 88 17:48:00 jst
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 88 17:48:00 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809110848.AA00306@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: JMC%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Lifschitz
If you can send Dr. Vladimir Lifschitz I will be able to support his stay
and travel in Japan (but not so much).
Takayasu Ito
∂11-Sep-88 1931 NSH meeting
Can we get together some time tomorrow afternoon?
Shankar
∂11-Sep-88 1959 NSH
2pm is good.
Thanks
Shankar
∂12-Sep-88 0934 CLT qlisp
Still no reply from Pullen. Are you going to try Squires
or shall I just cons up a reduced budget?
∂12-Sep-88 1120 JK NSF funding for EDI
I tried to call Rosenberg (head of information technology and organizations)
today; if you want to do the honors yourself, he will be in tomorrow.
Talked to Konsynski --- he gave me lots of references of enterprise modeling (!!)
and also suggested we look at our friend Winograd's stuff on structured
communication. Incidentally, HP research labs is active in that area, too.
In any case, I will try Rosenberg again unless you want to do it.
∂12-Sep-88 1208 JK engelmore
Just talked to him; he suggested Bob Kahn who is now at the Corporation
for National Research Initiatives. He also thought of Bob Simpson at Darpa.
So I will try these next --- anything I should know about these folks?
∂12-Sep-88 1221 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU Qlisp Publications
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 88 12:21:09 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 12:18 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Qlisp Publications
To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880912191849.0.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
This memo pertains to the recent controversy over Rabinov and Rivin's
paper on Arkady's parallel GCD implementation, and on some larger
issues. I should be glad to have your views on the points presented
below.
First, let me summarize the GCD paper.
A parallel algorithm is implemented (in a number of ways), and the
language features necessary to effect this implementation are described.
Some of the implementations are very simple, others require rather
sophisticated synchronization. The language is shown to have sufficient
power to express the synchronization required.
The performance of the various implementations is measured and is found
to be somewhat below naive expectations. The reasons (both algorithmic
and implementational) for this shortfall are deduced and as a result
suggestions are made as to the most profitable ways to improve
performance of the Qlisp system.
I contend that, at least in principle, this is precisely the kind of
paper the "applications" arm of the Qlisp effort is expected to produce.
Undoubtedly, this is different from a more expository style of paper, to
wit "Here is an algorithm and its serial implementation. Now here are
three of the LETs replaced by QLETs with simple propositional
arguments. Now watch the new code run 7.5 times as fast as the old code
on our eight processors."
Though there is certainly a place for this kind of paper, it should be
noted that it places any kind of credit for the success of the
experiment squarely on the fundamental design of the language and on the
implementation, precisely because it stresses that the performance gains
are achieved easily, by programming in a natural and obvious style. I am
not at all sure, therefore, that it does anything to further the cause
of the applications effort.
Returning now back to the specifics, although the sheer performance of
Arkady's code is perhaps not as high as we might like, it actually
compares favorably with results reported in practically every other
parallel Lisp report I have seen, including the recent Lisp Conference
paper on Qlisp by Gabriel and Goldman.
As an aside, Ron's talk at the conference (actually it was more like
Ron's and Dick's talk) was notably more negative than the paper,
claiming, in essence, that the Qlisp constructs are too low-level, lack
the power to express what people really want to express and make it
fairly difficult to obtain reasonable performance. As an alternative,
they (Ron and Dick) suggest the unfortunately named "qmondo" construct,
somewhat akin in style to some of the CommonLisp sequence operators
(that is, it takes numerous keyword arguments which control the precise
functionality). This proposal seems to have been treated more or less as
a joke by the audience, not without reason.
Since Gabriel bears a lot of responsiblity for the Qlisp project, it
would seem to me that anything he says is viewed as more or less the
"party line".
Returning from this aside, there seems to also be the question of using
Dan's results to bolster our performance figures (by the way, I have
asked him numerous time to run the GCD code on his system, with a
notable lack of response). There appear to me the following objections
to this.
Firstly, Dan's system has never been described (again, in spite of
numerous imprecations to do a write up), and I don't feel it would be
proper, to use it as a "black box".
Secondly, the system is not robust (I, for one, have had problems in the
past simply getting it to load), and is known to, for example, not
being able to survive a garbage collection. Thus, I don't think it is in
anywhere near the condition to be publicized yet.
Lastly, and most importantly, Dan's programming paradigm, to my mind,
is completely contrary to that of Qlisp. He advocates an "apparently
uncontrolled" style of parallelism, putting all the control into the
hands of the particular implementation (and more specifically the
scheduler). Thus it would seem to me that using results obtained with
his system in place of the "official" Qlisp results would be tantamount
to repudiating Qlisp, in my opinion. This is not a step to be taken
lightly. At the very least one needs to be aware that it is being taken.
Igor
∂12-Sep-88 1619 JSW Orals
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@POLYA.STANFORD.EDU,
RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
I would like to schedule my orals. Is a date between October 24
and November 4 convenient for you? (It will probably be at 2:15
on whatever day we choose.)
∂12-Sep-88 1633 MPS phone
John Nafeh called. Will try you at home and wants
you to call him tomorrow am.
Pat
∂12-Sep-88 2235 rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU Blocks
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 88 22:35:16 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA29483; Mon, 12 Sep 88 22:34:05 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 22:34:05 PDT
From: Tomas G. Rokicki <rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809130534.AA29483@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Blocks
Feel free to post this.
I have blocks on names. I have blocks on words all the time.
I have blocks on my own thoughts; sometimes I cannot remember
the idea I had just a few minutes ago, before I was interrupted.
(A few minutes usually suffices to bring it back.) I'll have
blocks on lyrics. I'll block on telephone numbers. Even my own.
I never have blocks on computer commands, or editor keystrokes,
or typing. I never have blocks on music.
-tom "uh, nowicki? rolicki? doohickey?" rokicki
∂12-Sep-88 2328 lipa@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 12 Sep 88 23:28:38 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00549; Mon, 12 Sep 88 23:27:30 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 23:27:30 PDT
From: William J. Lipa <lipa@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809130627.AA00549@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: psychological survey
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <Cac9S@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Blocking on a name seems similar to the feeling of deja vu, when you can
remember the sights and feelings of an experience but not the context.
Bill Lipa
∂13-Sep-88 0001 ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re:
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 00:01:24 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04522; Mon, 12 Sep 88 23:58:39 PDT
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 23:58:39 PDT
From: Ilan Vardi <ilan@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809130658.AA04522@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: su-etc@score
Subject: Re:
Cc: ilan@score, jmc@sail
I've had mental blocks about ... Oops, I forgot. Wait, it's is right
on the tip of my tongue. I had it a minute ago. It starts with the
letter B, and it's kind of like ``brick,'' but that's not it...
God, it's driving me crazy! I think I have a mental _____. What is
that word?
∂13-Sep-88 0800 JMC
squires
∂13-Sep-88 0800 JMC
bicycle to breakfast
∂13-Sep-88 0835 holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 08:35:49 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06329; Tue, 13 Sep 88 08:34:40 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 08:34:40 PDT
From: Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809131534.AA06329@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: psychological survey
In-Reply-To: <Cac9S@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
Interesting question. It seems to me that names block most easily because
one has more concrete interaction with other kinds of information. Or that
information is reinforced continually by extended observation, whereas the
name of something or someone is experienced quite infrequently. Every time
you look at someone or speak with them you are reminded of their sex; not so
with names. But if you have brief experience with someone (as an eyewitness
to a crime, say) it is easy to forget things like skin hue, hair colour, etc.
Sex tends to not be forgotten, because it is so salient a feature, I suppose.
I find it is pretty easy to forget colour for things I don't see too often.
Are rosemary blossoms purple, blue, or white? As I sit here I can't quite
remember -- I think it is purple. Or is it blue?
It isn't quite the same thing as you were talking about, but the category I
most have `blocks' on is directions. Is something to the left or the right?
Sometimes this is a matter of sorting out labels, so perhaps it is a matter of
`blocking on the name' but sometimes it is a matter of two equally plausible
mental images competing with each other. No wait, that's not quite it: I can
reconstruct the mental image either way -- like those reversable cube
illusions. With directions there is a relatively simple unblocking manoeuvre
-- looking at my hands or moving one of them. (Hapless as I am, sometimes even
this fails. I sometimes have to go through elaborate procedures "OK, this scar
represents an injury that interfered with my writing and I'm right-handed so
therefore...) -- mh
∂13-Sep-88 0845 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil PROGRAM REVIEW -- CPL
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 08:45:48 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00722; Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:43:47 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 13 Sep 88 11:45:08-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00883; Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:45:09 EDT
Date: Tue 13 Sep 88 11:45:08-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: PROGRAM REVIEW -- CPL
To: rpg@sail.stanford.edu, jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <590168708.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
You are off the hook, since Jack has been following CPL progress
closely already.
Bill
-------
∂13-Sep-88 0916 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil URGENT -- PROGRAM BRIEFING
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 09:13:36 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00699; Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:39:48 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 13 Sep 88 11:41:08-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00872; Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:41:10 EDT
Date: Tue 13 Sep 88 11:41:08-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: URGENT -- PROGRAM BRIEFING
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <590168468.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PIs:
Jack Schwartz has asked me to organize a review of the Algorithms and
Software Technology research activity funded in the office. He has
asked that two full days be devoted to briefing by software
contractors.
The purpose of the briefing is to better inform Jack of the technical
aspects of the efforts funded as part of the Software Technology
program, to permit Jack to get to know the program PIs a bit better,
and to have an opportunity for some direct technical interaction.
Other office programs are undergoing similar or more extensive program
reviews. It is fair to say that Jack is a strong supporter of our
software technology efforts; however, he does want to become
technically better informed about the activities of the community.
I recognize that this request is with little advance notice. Jack is
very eager, however, to complete this review before the end of
September.
(1) The review will last two days. The dates set are Monday 26 Sept
and Friday 30 Sept at DARPA in Washington. Each effort will have a 30
minute slot, of which 20 minutes (roughly) should be allocated to a
presentation by the PI(s) and 10 minutes for discussion. (These are
short slots, I know, but they fill up the entire two days.)
(2) The review will be in the form of a series of individual briefings
to Jack. This is NOT a community discussion: PIs should plan on being
present only for their brief unless they are directly collaborating
with other groups (e.g., Arcadia).
(3) Certain efforts will NOT be reviewed. These efforts, specified by
Jack, are those with which Jack already feels sufficiently familiar.
You should not interpret non-participation as an indication of
favorable or unfavorable judgement of the project. I will directly
contact those groups for which reviews are not required.
(4) Please call Nicole Fields AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (i.e., today) to
negotiate for a slot. Nicole will allocate on a first-in basis, so
call early if you have serious time constraints. Her number is the
same as mine: (202)694-5800. She is usually here between 7:30am and
3:30pm.
(5) Attendance should be by a principal technical PI or PIs. One or
two people is the ideal number. Larger or more diversified efforts
can include more. Be prepared for technical discussion.
(6) I will send some specific suggestions for preparing your briefing
in a separate message.
(7) Please call me if you have any questions.
-------
∂13-Sep-88 0943 KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU blocks
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 09:43:20 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 09:38:17 PDT
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: blocks
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12430263781.20.KARP@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I find myself blocking on arbitrary words at times while speaking.
That is, I know there's a word for the concept I want to express,
but I can't think of it. Not sure if you want to call this a name or
not.
I don't really trust introspection here; "blocking on a name" has a
specific feel to us, but its mechanism may be no different from other
random memory errors. One thing that comes to mind is forgetting where
you've put something, and then remembering it later. This feels
somewhat like a block but not quite the same.
Peter
-------
∂13-Sep-88 0953 RPG Jack's Program review
To: scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Does this include Qlisp?
-rpg-
∂13-Sep-88 0955 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Mental Blocks
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 09:55:03 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08721; Tue, 13 Sep 88 09:53:50 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 09:53:50 PDT
From: Eric J. Berglund <berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809131653.AA08721@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, su-etc@score
Subject: Mental Blocks
Cc: isaacs@psych
My most frustrating mental block recently has been seeing an actor or
actress in a film or TV show, recognizing the face or voice, and being
unable to place where I've seen them before. If I solve this problem,
then sometimes I can get the name. Rarely do I get the name first, and
then have it trigger the past roles.
--Eric
∂13-Sep-88 0958 berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU Generalizing My Mental Block
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 09:58:29 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08926; Tue, 13 Sep 88 09:57:17 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 09:57:17 PDT
From: Eric J. Berglund <berglund@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809131657.AA08926@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Generalizing My Mental Block
Cc: isaacs@psych
I think there are times when I see people I recognize, but can't place
how I know them: most often it's because the people show up in
unexpected contexts. For example, one of my volleyball playing buddies
shows up outside Jacks. Perhaps context is one of the coding schemes
you're looking for.
--Eric
∂13-Sep-88 1131 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Memory "blocks"
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 11:31:23 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:27:59 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 11:27:59 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Memory "blocks"
Hi there,
I have blocks on all kinds of words, i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives and
adverbs. It's not at all limited to names. But then again, my problem
strikes me as both rare and rather extreme. I also suffer from pretty
strong "output interference" for lists. That is, say I have some items
to buy at the store or some points to make in a paper. Over the course
of a day, say, these items accumulate in my mind and are accessible.
However, the minute I begin to commit them to paper (or computer file),
only the first few make it out. The others get blocked and I have to drop
the endeavor and do something else for a while in order for them to return.
-helen
P.S. Cognitive psychologists have suggested two major types of memory:
1) semantic memory (words & knowledge) and 2) episodic memory
(memory for events). Episodic memory doesn't seem to suffer from
interference among normal people. I'm not the most up-to-date on
this, but I could ask around the psych dept. for references if you
are interested.
∂13-Sep-88 1211 art@playfair.stanford.edu Blocks
Received: from playfair.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 12:10:56 PDT
Received: by playfair.stanford.edu; Tue, 13 Sep 88 12:12:59 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 12:12:59 PDT
From: Art Owen <art@playfair.stanford.edu>
Subject: Blocks
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
I often block on phone numbers. One time I was asked for a phone number
at a dry cleaner in another city. I could not remember the number of the
place at which I was staying, even though it is a number that I used to
call from here on a regular basis. After that, to remember the number,
I imagined myself in California calling there.
Art Owen
∂13-Sep-88 1221 JK
John ----
Just talked to Elliot Levinthal; our interests seem to dovetail
with his vis-a-vis Stanford Institute of Manufacturing Automation. He
is particularly interested in automation of purchasing as it relates
to manufacturing. The board (consisting of big boys like HP etc)
of the said institute will be meeting October 6. He would be happy
to circulate a precis of our proposal both for financial support
and setting up real contacts with industry. He also suggested the
following sources:
--- DARPA office of manufacturing technology
(McCormick,Assistant Secretary of Defense, is the guy to talk to)
--- NSF manufacturing technology group
None of the above 3 sources would be mutually exclusive. In any case,
he seemed very interested. I will be sending him some materials (your
paper and EDI in general).
Jussi
∂13-Sep-88 1350 larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU Re: psychological survey
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 13:50:41 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA21024; Tue, 13 Sep 88 13:49:28 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 13:49:28 PDT
From: Tracy Larrabee <larrabee@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809132049.AA21024@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: psychological survey
Newsgroups: su.etc
In-Reply-To: <Cac9S@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Stanford University
Cc:
I block on numbers (such as phone, ssn, address) and occasional words
(I know the word I want, and I know the sense I mean, but I can not
get the actual word into my hands until something jars me). Actually,
I block on words in foreign languages more than my own--actually block,
and not just fail to know.
∂13-Sep-88 1419 CLT ra
Do you intend to hire Fangzhen Lin as an RA this comming year?
∂13-Sep-88 1439 JK
∂13-Sep-88 1234 JMC reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 13-Sep-88 12:21-PT.]
I'm impressed with your progress in making contacts. I think you should
try to have something new to supplement my paper ASAP. I would be glad
to attend a meeting or two.
---------------
I think the first step will be a prospectus for the proposal; I have
already been caught a few times by people asking to see a piece of
paper on it. I should have it done by the end of this week; it will
need your comments soon thereafter. Also, it was clear that Levinthal
wanted to know who I was --- if there is a convenient time and place,
it might help if you can increase his awareness.
Jussi
∂13-Sep-88 1444 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Re: Orals
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 14:44:12 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06123; Tue, 13 Sep 88 14:41:28 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 14:41:28 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809132141.AA06123@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL, ullman@polya, RPG@SAIL
Subject: Re: Orals
Jeff says the proposed two-week period is probably OK. Dick has a
likely conflict from October 24 to 27, and John prefers the week of
October 24 or early the next week. I think this brings it down to
October 28, October 31, or November 1 as the best days.
∂13-Sep-88 1538 RPG Orals
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, ullman@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
JSW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
All of those days are good for me.
-rpg-
∂13-Sep-88 1709 rhw@sierra.STANFORD.EDU survey
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 17:09:00 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 13 Sep 88 10:48:32 PDT
From: rhw@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Robert H. Wentworth)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1988 10:48:29 PDT
To: jmc@sail
Subject: survey
I'm not positive I know what you would classify as a "block," but I think
I occasionally block the spelling of words. For instance, once I was
writing and came to the word "little" and wrote it down but it looked
wrong and I just couldn't be sure how it was spelled, though I've used
it all my life and am a good speller. After looking it up and letting
a day (?) pass, my knowledge returned to normal. I do definitely occasionally
block names of friends too.
I don't think they would be classified as blocks by your definition, but I
block' (to use an alternate term) some knowledge in the sense that I seem to
block learning it though I have frequent need of it. This also happens with
spelling (e.g., I don't know how many n's there are in happenned though I've
looked it up a dozens or more times over the years) and also with (local)
geography. For instance, it took me many years to acquire a clue as to how
the roads were connected in back of Stanford (i.e, around Foothill, alpine,
and a few others) and I couldn't confidently associate road names with
visual images of roads, though I had to drive the area occasionally and
have a pretty good understanding of many geographic areas.
Is _The_Intentional_Stance_ new from Dennett? Read some of Dennett's other
books (e.g., the one on free will -- _Elbow_Room_ -- whose name I almost
couldn't recall) and thought they were terrific.
\Bob
∂13-Sep-88 1756 rhw@helens.STANFORD.EDU re: survey
Received: from helens.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 17:56:32 PDT
Received: by helens.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Tue, 13 Sep 88 17:56:24 PDT
From: rhw@helens.STANFORD.EDU
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1988 17:56:22 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: survey
In-Reply-To: Your message of 13 Sep 88 1717 PDT
check
∂13-Sep-88 1831 mogul@decwrl.dec.com Mental blocks
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 13 Sep 88 18:31:31 PDT
Received: from acetes.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA01862; Tue, 13 Sep 88 18:30:10 PDT
Received: by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
id AA12614; Tue, 13 Sep 88 17:32:45 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 17:32:45 PDT
From: mogul@decwrl.dec.com (Jeffrey Mogul)
Message-Id: <8809140032.AA12614@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Mental blocks
Sure, on lots of things besides names.
Simple things like phone numbers, even those I "should" know
(like my office phone). Also, inverse blocks on phone numbers:
I have this number in my head but I don't know what it is. As
a (sort of) example, I just moved last month & got a number in
the 323- exchange. I had a friend who lived in that exchange,
but who moved away > 2 years ago, and I still flash on her
number when I am asked to recall my new number.
Songs (words thereof, tunes thereof, or names thereof). For example,
what is the theme to some obscure TV show I last saw 15 years ago?
It took me a day or two of oblique searching to recall one of those
a few months ago.
Jokes. I know I know a joke on a certain model, but it often
takes me a while to remember the particular joke.
Ideas. When I start to write something, I have a lot of ideas
I want to put in. By the time I've written part, many of those
ideas are lost ... until I mail the final draft, of course.
What did I come into this room for, anyway?
-jeff
∂14-Sep-88 0300 israel@russell.stanford.edu Re: questions about philosophical terminology
Received: from russell.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Sep 88 03:00:38 PDT
Received: by russell.stanford.edu (3.2/4.7); Wed, 14 Sep 88 03:04:20 PDT
Date: Wed 14 Sep 88 03:04:19-PDT
From: David Israel <ISRAEL@Russell.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: questions about philosophical terminology
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590234659.0.ISRAEL@Russell.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <7btOD@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(244)+TOPSLIB(128)@Russell.Stanford.EDU>
Sure, I'd love to. At the moment, though, I am in the olde Cambridge,
about to head up to edinburgh. I return next Monday and I'll get in
touch soon after.
--david
-------
∂14-Sep-88 0800 JMC
squires
∂14-Sep-88 0801 @forsythe.stanford.edu:MEERSMAN@HTIKUB5.BITNET Contribution to China Proceedings
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Sep 88 08:01:25 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Wed, 14 Sep 88 08:01:20 PDT
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 16:57 N
From: <MEERSMAN%HTIKUB5.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Contribution to China Proceedings
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
X-Original-To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Dear Prof. McCarthy,
You should have received the transcript of your talk in Guangzhou from us by
now. By the end of this month I would appreciate to have your comments and
corrections so as to include the material in the proceedings. A manually
annotated copy will do fine as last resort, but of course I would prefer it if
you could provide me with a reworked version. Please limit corrections to the
discussion part to linguitic interventions since I would like to preserve the
spirit of it--I think the discussion went quite well.
Again, thank you for your contribution so far-- am looking forward to the
final result.
As for your expenses, this has to be settled with the organization chair
which managed the budget. This is
Prof. Dr. A. Solvberg
NORUNIT--Tech. Univ. of Trondheim
Trondheim NTH
Norway
e-mail : solvberg@norunit.bitnet
Kind regards,
Robert Meersman
Program Chm. and Proceedings Editor
∂14-Sep-88 1023 CLT labrea
Joe told me a while ago that he created a labrea account
for you and moved a bunch of files there, but that you
had not deleted the corresponding files here. Has
that been fixed. It seems silly to pay twice for storage.
There is 36k a year budgeted for computer in the AI task
and you and Vladimir alone used 4k last month.
∂14-Sep-88 1104 MPS China
I have the address where to invoivce for your trip to China.
I now need the receipts to attach to it. The only one I have
is the receipt for the airport parking. Thanks
Pat
∂14-Sep-88 1131 CLT qlisp
Have you talked to Squires yet?
Here is a proposed new budget (18month)
Bottom line summary (stanford part):
year 1 year 2 (.5)
new budget 464139 247092
old budget 891659 424119
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Qlisp budget second 1.5yr 1/Jan/89 to 30/Jun/90
QLISP on Parallel Processors
Part I - Basic Tasks
Personnel
Prof. John McCarthy
15% academic year 11841 6400
30% summer quarter 7370 4000
Carolyn Talcott, Research Assoc.
25% full year 14225 15000
Joseph Weening, Research Assoc.
100% full year 44000 24000
Daniel Pehoushek, Research Programmer
100% full year 30305 16000
Kelly Roach, Student Research Asst.
50% academic year 9873 10465
100% summer quarter 6246 6621
Pat Simmons, Secretary
25% full year 6000 3000
Administrative Assistance 6493 3470
5% of above salaries
------ ------
Salary Base 136353 72870
Staff Benefits 36951 20257
27.1% 9/1/88-8/31/89
27.8% 9/1/89-8/31/90
Domestic travel 8000 4000
(4 East coast trips/yr @ $1000,
4 Western trips/yr @ $1000)
Foreign travel 4000 2000
(2 trips/yr @ $2000)
Computer Maintenance
Alliant 41652 23100
Symbolics 7332 3600
Computer Services 24000 12000
Other direct costs 10000 5000
------ ------
94984 49700
Subtotal, direct costs 268288 142827
(original proposal) 482462 251309
Plus overhead 73% 464139 247092
(original proposal) 891659 424119
incl cap equip
Capital Equipment Not included
4 Sun 3/50MQ-8 Workstations 9000
2 Fujitsu Eagle disk 8000
1 32Mbyte Alliant memory 40000
72k/year is alliance maintanence
it appears on stanford budget but should be thought of as
at least half lucid cost.
∂14-Sep-88 1230 nfields@vax.darpa.mil meetings, continued
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Sep 88 12:30:43 PDT
Received: from sun16.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA05218; Wed, 14 Sep 88 15:14:20 EDT
Posted-Date: Wed 14 Sep 88 15:15:39-EDT
Received: by sun16.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA00398; Wed, 14 Sep 88 15:15:49 EDT
Date: Wed 14 Sep 88 15:15:39-EDT
From: Nicole L. Fields <NFIELDS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: meetings, continued
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <590267739.0.NFIELDS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PIs:
Please let me know who will be attending the briefings for
Jack Schwartz on 26 and 30 September.
Thanks,
Nicole
-------
∂14-Sep-88 1241 CLT qlisp
If it is not our move, then whose move is it, and
who is seeing to it that they are moving?
∂14-Sep-88 1442 CLT opera
tue 4 oct 20:00 Opera (Rakes Progress)
mon 21 nov 20:00 Opera (Lady M)
∂14-Sep-88 1501 VAL
I need to know the third reason for introducing mental situations, in order
to complete the following fragment:
Here are the reasons for introducing mental situations.
1. We hope to use them in the control of reasoning. If we
regard reasoning steps as mental actions, we can prove properties
of reasoning algorithms in the same way we prove properties of
other programs of action. In the mental situation, we want to
prove the appropriateness of reasoning strategies for achieving
mental goals.
2. The limitations of the situation calculus, e.g. to
discrete non-concurrent events, arise less in thinking than in
external action.
3.
∂14-Sep-88 1518 ME Pumpkin request
The old tape you requested a file off of is currently unreadable,
so the file can't be restored.
∂14-Sep-88 1716 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU A Qlisp Manifesto
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Sep 88 17:16:06 PDT
Received: from Ignorant.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02783; Wed, 14 Sep 88 17:13:09 PDT
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 17:13 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: A Qlisp Manifesto
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <19880915001322.7.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
In recent weeks there has been some debate about the image Qlisp wants
to project to the world. In order for this problem to be solved, there
needs to be a coherent Qlisp doctrine. The following is
an attempt to construct such a doctrine.
1. The parallel programming paradigms -- where do we fit in?
So far there seem to be the following distinct (though not mutually
exclusive) approaches to parallel programming:
A. The optimistic "deus ex machina" approach.
This is mostly represented by the FORTRAN community. The proponents of
this approach maintain that with little or no effort on part of the
programmer, and even without a major change of programming style (such a
change is rarely practicable in case of "dusty decks") reasonable
performance may be obtained by appropriate compiler technology.
B. The functional approach
This is favored by much of the functional programming community, by Bert
Halstead, Tom Knight and in our own midst, by Dan Pehoushek.
The adherents of this approach believe in parallelism though parallel
function calling. This implies writing code in such a manner as to
minimize side effects, and then, at least in principle, have each
function call be a potential parallel process. Since this is evidently
impractical, they rely on a mixture of annotation ("future", "pcall", et
cetera) and run-time support by the implementation (process scheduling,
for example), to limit the degree of parallelism to a feasible level.
C. The hand-holding approach.
This is the approach Qlisp takes. The advocates of
this approach would have the programmer be considerably more intimately
involved in the decision of whether or not to create parallelism at any
given point in the program. The actual decision is not necessarily made
explicitly at the time the code is written, since it may be influenced
by some information only available at run-time.
Since the degree of programmer involvement (and therefore the difficulty
of programming) increases from A. to B. and from B. to C. the question
naturally arises of what the fruits of this increased labor are.
I believe that programming in the hand-holding style is akin to
assembly-language programming; while labor-intensive, the POTENTIAL for
performance is greater than that promised by either A. or B.,
since they are subsumed by C. For example, if the present Qlisp system
were more modular, in would not be too difficult (in my opinion) to
implement Dan's system on top of it, with only a relatively small
efficiency loss.
Furthermore, since the field of parallel processing is still in its
infancy, it is quite likely that any automatic tools developed to date
are not as powerful as they could be. It can be argued that one way they
can be improved is by getting our (human) hands dirty, in order to
acquire the knowledge necessary to build powerful tools.
I believe that ultimately the high level parallel programming languages
will be the norm. By "high level" I mean some combination of approaches A.
and B. (for example a "smart compiler" may annotate a program
automatically, and then rely on the run-time system to make the best use
of its annotations). The programming style will have to adapt to become
more suitable for parallel algorithm implementation.
2. Implications.
The above doctrine has a direct bearing on the direction of our
research at present.
Firstly, it implies that the goal of anyone writing a Qlisp program
should not be maximal speed-up per se, but rather understanding of the
difficulties met in achieving a reasonable performance (and the
desired semantics, of course), understanding
of the methods used to overcome those difficulties, and the prospects of
encapsulating these methods in higher-level language constructs. This
also implies that naked performance numbers are not very useful. If the
performance is low, and that is caused by the inefficiencies in the
underlying implementation, THAT is significant. After all, an assembly
language needs to be efficient...
Secondly, there needs to be a Qlisp kernel, consisting of essentials,
and anything remotely problem-dependent (the scheduler, for example),
should be part of a library. The interface of the kernel to the
libraries should be clean, so that it is possible to try out new
extensions easily, and so that one would need to do the absolute minimal
work to port the system to new hardware.
The doctrine also implies that a type-B system, like Dan's, is a
perfectly acceptable outgrowth of Qlisp, but it needs to be implemented
in Qlisp. Having it implemented "from scratch" implies that Qlisp is
inadequate to its task. Further, having the system implemented in Qlisp
would hopefully make it more robust.
It should also be noted that Dan's system is far from a panacea (at
present it is only known to work for problems requiring depth-first
style of computation, which is an important but nowhere near
all-inclusive class). Thus it would probably be happiest in conjuction
with other extensions to the basic Qlisp.
Lastly, the doctrine implies that there is no need to apologize for
Qlisp's insufficient expressive power. Such shortcoming are to be
expected, and should merely spur one on to find the right higher-level
constructs. Hopefully the high-level extensions can at some point be
amalgamated into a coherent whole, which can then be pubicized as
Qlisp-X, or whatever, but probably not until then. For instance, I suspect
that mentioning QMONDO at the Lisp Conference may have been premature.
Igor
∂14-Sep-88 1721 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 14 Sep 88 17:21:44 PDT
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 88 17:19 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
To: roach@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Supersedes: <19880915001858.8.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
Included-msgs: <12430278587.32.JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>,
The message of 13 Sep 88 10:59 PDT from JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU,
The message of 13 Sep 88 10:59 PDT from H. Roy Jones
Message-ID: <19880915001925.9.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
This is the word about the computer algebra course TA situation. I
wonder if there may be something one can do to convince them of the
error of their ways...
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 10:59 PDT
From: H. Roy Jones <JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: TA
To: rivin@Score.Stanford.EDU
Igor,
Normally a 400 level course does not receive TA support. Moreover, according
to our records, your class had 4 students last year. It takes a much higher
enrollment to justify TA support for any kind of class.
Roy
-------
∂15-Sep-88 1122 GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu congratulations!
Received: from rvax.ccit.arizona.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 11:21:38 PDT
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 08:05 MST
From: GOODMAN%uamis@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu
Subject: congratulations!
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
X-VMS-To: MCCARTHY
John:
Congratulations and best wishes re the Kyoto Prize.
Sy
∂15-Sep-88 1140 pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Categorizing the Problems of Parallel Program Development
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 11:39:55 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05946; Thu, 15 Sep 88 11:37:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 11:37:11 PDT
From: Dan Pehoushek <pehoushe@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809151837.AA05946@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: JMC@sail
Subject: Categorizing the Problems of Parallel Program Development
Joe and I are writing a paper about the Dynamic scheduling predicate;
I'd like to say something like the following, but that paper may be an
inappropriate place for the Composition Problem. We need to maintain
a highly technical focus.
I suspect Darpa might appreciate our addressing the Composition
Problem. What do you think? Can you use it to entice Darpa into
spending more money on us?
************* The Composition Problem *************
These are four distinct Problems of Parallelism; the relative importance
of them depends on your perspective:
1. Program Efficiency losses due to high cost spawning decisions.
2. Program Efficiency losses due to inadequate spawning decisions.
3. Programmer Efficiency losses due to wasting time trying to develop
good spawning control systems (unnecessary, increased complexity
of parallel programs?)
4. Programmer Teams Efficiency losses due to trying to join a bunch
of finely tuned parallel programs into a large, finely tuned
program (the COMPOSITION PROBLEM), which doesn't break or run out
of resources.
In terms of the World's GNP, probably problems 3 and 4 are most costly
(or will be, once parallel languages become common place). If you
treat the COMPOSITION PROBLEM as the fundamental parallelism problem,
and derive a system or language for handling this problem in an
adequate manner, then the solution of the Composition Problem may
subsume the solution to the other problems. In fact, for instances
in which the parallelism is abundant, this is the case.
The Garbage-less scheduler and Dynamic spawning control predicate is
an initial solution to the Composition problem; it does appear to
favorably handle the other three problems.
-dan
∂15-Sep-88 1333 VAL
Where can I find the reference (Searle 198x) (``Chinese room'' story)?
∂15-Sep-88 1601 BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU check
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 16:01:28 PDT
Date: Thu 15 Sep 88 15:57:37-PDT
From: Sharon Bergman <BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: check
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: clt@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12430857124.30.BERGMAN@Score.Stanford.EDU>
John, The check for your August summer supplemental salary
has arrived, and I will give it to Pat Simmons to give to you.
The supplement for the first half of Sept. will come on the usual
pay day, Sept. 22.
-Sharon
-------
∂15-Sep-88 1618 shankar@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Writeup
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 16:18:41 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA06729; Thu, 15 Sep 88 16:15:51 PDT
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 16:15:51 PDT
From: N. Shankar <shankar@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809152315.AA06729@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Writeup
Here's a listing of my activities while I've been here.
The two directions have been in designing more powerful computational
logics, and in coming up with a better understanding of what
theorem proving/proof checking is about. The way they tie together
is that to implement a second generation FOL-like system, one needs
a powerful computational logic to carry out the reflected metatheoretic
reasoning. I am currently in the process of putting all of these
ideas together in a proof checker I am implementing.
Computational Logic: I have been formalizing a logic for a functional
language like pure Scheme. The task requires the formalization of
operational reasoning. I have two logics, both of which are based
on a logic of partial terms. One is based on an instance
of Scott induction without the admissibility tears. It can be
seen as an extension of the McCarthy-Cartwright work to higher-order
functions. The second logic is based on the computational induction
in the spirit of Gordon and Carolyn Talcott. Here a subcomputation
relation is formalized (rather than dealt with metatheoretically).
The second logic is more powerful than the first. Both logics are
straightforward enough that a normal programmer can use them and they
are cleaner and more powerful than most of the existing logics.
A formalization of higher-order functions is crucial for reasoning about
the kind of object-oriented implementations of proof checkers which
Jussi has been proposing. I am planning to send a paper on this to
the next LICS.
Theorem proving: I have designed and implemented two theorem provers
in the style of Bledsoe's provers. One works for the intuitionistic
predicate calculus and is based on the crucial insight that skolemization/
unification is a way to postpone the choice of a term for existential
generalization while maintaining the eigenvariable conditions on a
sequent calculus proof in the face of certain impermutabilities.
This is a very general insight applicable over a wide range of logics.
The skolemization technique I use for intuitionistic logic is useful
for understanding logically enriched versions of Prolog. I have
submitted this to the Journal of Automated Reasoning.
I have also designed and implemented a similar sequent calculus
procedure for classical predicate calculus. Its distinguishing
feature is that it uses a single labelling scheme for formulas to
both avoid variable renaming and to avoid redundant paths in proof search.
That is, if one goal of a case split was proved without relying on the
split formula, the other goal is assumed to be proven as well.
Both theorem provers are implemented in an interesting continuation passing
style. Both provers generate traces of their proof attempts so that
the user can grasp the proof and the prover's strategy. They also
return the resulting unifier so that one can do the kind of bound
extraction that Gian Luigi has devised.
Proof checking: I am currently implementing a computational logic proof
checker which I want to use for experimenting with metamathematical
extensibility, perhaps incorporating object orientedness which I am
only beginning to understand. This is what I proposed I would do in
the NSF proposal.
I have also worked out the informal details of the proof of the
second incompleteness theorem which I need to formalize on the
Boyer-Moore prover. I have never really seen a reasonable proof of
it in a textbook.
Finally, I put in considerable effort teaching CS306 and the student
reviews of the course appear to be excellent, and I found it enjoyable
and enlightening as well.
Your comments and questions would be welcomed with delight.
Thanks,
Shankar
∂15-Sep-88 1656 @forsythe.stanford.edu:ELLIOTT@SLACVM.BITNET Bike Ride
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 16:56:49 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Thu, 15 Sep 88 14:37:58 PDT
Date: 15 Sep 88 14:36 PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: JMC@SAIL
Subject: Bike Ride
Date: 15 September 1988, 14:32:43 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD
Subject: Bike Ride
DEar John,
I have a meeting which will delay me until about 12:45 on Friday. Mike
Cagley has told me that he will meet you at your house at 12:30 and
ride with you to meet me at Page Mill and Foothill at 12:45. I may be
a few minutes later. Please respond to this message so I know you
received it and agree.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂15-Sep-88 1827 CLT files
File Ext PPN Pro Size Date Time Writer Using Reference % Ref# Dumped
******* Normal Page: 3 files (35 blocks) *******
EBOS PUB PROJMC 005 3.4 14-Jul-86 2006 1LES E 15-Sep-88 0 3 15-Jul-88P 2
PUB source for the EBOS proposal to IBM
QLISPP TEX PROJMC 005 5.2 15-Sep-88 1818 1CLT E 15-Sep-88 0
TEX source for Qlisp proposal -- First 18 months (7/15/86-1/15/88)
QLISP TEX PROJMC 055 24.3 3-Feb-86 1743 1LES E 15-Sep-88 1 7 15-Jul-88P 2
TEX source for Appendix B of QLISPP.TEX
∂15-Sep-88 1923 harnad@Princeton.EDU Re: comments on The Intentional Stance
Received: from Princeton.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Sep 88 19:23:41 PDT
Received: from mind.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.58+++/1.80)
id AA26217; Thu, 15 Sep 88 22:22:35 EDT
Received: by mind (1.2/1.62)
id AA11889; Thu, 15 Sep 88 22:21:55 edt
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 22:21:55 edt
From: harnad@Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
Message-Id: <8809160221.AA11889@mind>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: comments on The Intentional Stance
John, the first round of commentary on Dennett is due to appear in BBS
very soon now. Once it appears (and you've had a chance to see whether
you need to update your commentary on the basis of what's already
appeared) we can include your contribution in the first round of Continuing
Commentary. Unfortunately, however, it must be written for BBS; it
cannot just be passages that are appearing elsewhere. -- Stevan
∂16-Sep-88 0040 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU re: [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 00:40:02 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 00:37 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: [JONES@Score.Stanford.EDU: TA]
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <7cDai@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <19880916073744.1.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 15 Sep 88 2338 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
[In reply to message sent Wed, 14 Sep 88 17:19 PDT.]
I can't see the Department changing its mind on this.
Well, it's not that I can't live without a TA, but Kelly will presumably
need a half-time TAship in the upcoming term, and Computer Algebra is
obviously what he would rather TA. Also, since the course will now be
taught a second time, the attendance will be higher, presumably.
(Actually, attendance last year was at least three times the official
enrolment, but the department probably doesn't care).
Oh well.
Igor
∂16-Sep-88 0325 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM Eulerian asymptosy [Was: bogonomial coefficients]
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 03:25:07 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 320151; Fri 16-Sep-88 06:23:07 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 70796; Fri 16-Sep-88 03:20:01 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 03:19 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Eulerian asymptosy [Was: bogonomial coefficients]
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880915100815.1.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880916101943.2.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
bcc: "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"rcs@tis-w.arpa"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 88 03:08 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
The binomial coefficients can be defined by the edge conditions
BN(N,0)=BN(N,N)=1, and the recurrence BN(N,K+1)+BN(N,K) = BN(N+1,K+1).
In trying to deduce the asymptotic behavior from just the recurrence,
(without the edge conditions), I stumbled upon this highly nonbinomial
exact solution!
BN(N,K) = A*(N-2*K+B)*2↑N.
(A and B arbitrary.) So even just 2↑N works. So much for that approach.
What I was really after was an asymptotic for Eulerian(2n+k,n) for n>>k,
where, recall, Eulerian(n,k) forms a triangle like Pascal's except the
recurrence is weighted by the indices of the diagonals:
1
1 1
1 4 1
1 11 11 1
1 26 66 26 1
1 57 302 302 57 1
2416
Does anybody know the asymptotic for this near its middle? Numerically, it
looks roughly like (2n+k+1)!/sqrt(n), (if we coordinatize like Pascal's, with
(0,0) at the apex). For Pascal's, Stirling's formula gives
Binom(2n+k,n) ~ 2↑(2n+k)(1-quadratic(k)/n)/sqrt(πn).
Here's a hack. By spazzing with generating functions, I found
1 u↑1/1! + 4 u↑3/3! + 66 u↑5/5! + 2416 u↑7/7! +
= 2 Sum JPrime (2ku),
k≥0 2k
a Kapteyn series! (Remember the one I sent equaling z cos (z cos (z ...))?)
JPrime[n](z) is the derivative wrt z of Bessel's J[n](z). It's actually
pretty good for computing the Eulerian midline, since it depends only on
powers of z ≥ n-1. (Actually, the same technique should yield Kapteynish
series for offcenter columns as well.)
∂16-Sep-88 0738 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Call for White Papers - DARPA/ISTO PI Meeting
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 07:38:34 PDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA10514; Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:42:14 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 09:42:27-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA17209; Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:42:28 EDT
Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 09:42:27-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Call for White Papers - DARPA/ISTO PI Meeting
To: ISTO-PI-LIST@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: Pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <590420547.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dear PI,
The purpose of this message is to invite you to submit topics for
discussion sessions at the upcoming DARPA/ISTO Principal Investigators
Meeting. These topics will be used by the Program Committee to
assemble several parallel discussion sessions on "new ideas".
We plan two blocks of such discussions, as well as other blocks
reporting on current research.
The following rules apply to the topics:
- must be a multi-group effort; we seek new directions for the
research community, not research proposals
- must be cross-cutting and interdisciplinary (to support the
"cross fertilization" goal of the meeting); we expect the best
minds in AI, Networking, Command and Control, Distributed Systems,
Computer Architectures, Software, VLSI Design, Robotics, and
Computer Science/Engineering in general to attend this meeting
- you must be prepared to present the idea and lead the discussion,
length detemined by the topic; could be part of a session of
short items, or have a whole session to itself (please recommend
time to be allotted)
Please submit your ideas in the form of a two-page white paper. Papers
selected for discussion will be printed in the Meeting Notes, so make
them fit on two 8.5 by 11 inch pages with 1 inch margins, printed in
12 pt type. Send them over the net to pimeet@vax.darpa.mil, or mail
to DARPA.ISTO, ATTN: PI Meeting, 1400 Wilson Blvd, Arlington VA 22209.
Papers must arrive here by 30 September to be considered.
Mark Pullen for Jack Schwartz
and the Staff of DARPA/ISTO
-------
∂16-Sep-88 0940 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU tech reports
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 09:40:19 PDT
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:37 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: tech reports
To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880916163751.5.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
I have some (about 6) preprints written over the last several months.
Some are pertinent to Qlisp and some are not (at least in any obvious way).
The question is, is it proper to make them into CSD tech reports while
they await publication, since I assume such reports would be charged to
QLISP?
Igor.
∂16-Sep-88 1025 Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM Re: review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 10:25:48 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 16 SEP 88 10:09:23 PDT
Date: 16 Sep 88 10:09 PDT
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
In-reply-to: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>'s message of 15 Sep 88 23:26
PDT
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: bobrow.PA@Xerox.COM,stefik.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880916-100923-4736@Xerox>
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
To: bobrow.PA
I would like to do such a review. Is Bibel still the
review editor? If so, what's his current net address?
No Mark Stefik (here at PARC) is the review editor, and I have copied him on
this note. I am sure he will be delighted with your volunteering to write a
review.
danny
∂16-Sep-88 1141 nick@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU I haven't forgotten you
Received: from ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 11:41:10 PDT
Received: from HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU by ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 194393; Fri 16-Sep-88 14:40:15 EDT
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 14:39 EDT
From: Nick Papadakis <nick@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: I haven't forgotten you
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, munnari!trlamct.oz.au!andrew@uunet.UU.NET
Message-ID: <19880916183941.7.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I haven't forgotten or lost your posting concerning the
re-organization of AIList. I am planning a special issue of the digest
devoted to this topic, and have been accumulating information and ideas
for it for many months. It should appear within two or three weeks.
There are some technical issues concerning distribution that
need to be solved before I can give my full attention to reorganization;
the complexity of the task is daunting. There are no fewer than 18
*other* lists that deal with AI in one way or another. Interfacing with
these is likely to be difficult.
My apolgies for the seeming slowness of progress.
Regards,
- nick
∂16-Sep-88 1156 JK DARPA/ISTO
Looks like the prospectus is the right thing to peddle in that
place; I will get it done by tomorrow. By the way, I am now
exchanging EMAIL with Konsynski. I talked to HP Labs; they are
doing stuff on Structured Communication (a la Winograd) --- they are
also very interested.
∂16-Sep-88 1426 DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA Religion
Received: from EDWARDS-2060.ARPA ([26.1.0.39]) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 14:26:20 PDT
Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 14:23:55-PDT
From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
Subject: Religion
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <12431102211.10.DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
John,
Since the topic has moved from any possible AI relevance, I am sending my reply
to your comment in the AIList Digest directly to you. You said:
>A religion that claimed that the Catholic Church was protected
>from doing evil by God,
I am wondering what religion this is. The Catholic Church itself has never
claimed that any of its members were ever protected from doing evil by God.
A blatant example might be Joan of Arc, burned for heresy as a result of an
official Church trial. When the trial was examined later, not only did no
one claim that the Church had been protected from doing evil, but the Church
itself declared that Joan is a saint, and the trial wrong. And of course you
might want to examine the lives of some of the Popes, who are considered
monsters by the Church today. No thought that they were protected from doing
evil.
Perhaps you are confusing "infallibility" which means protection from
making a factual error in an official ex cathedra declaration (mighty few of
these, Papal encyclicals or letters are not infallible) with "impeccability"
which does mean protection from doing evil, but which is not claimed for
anyone by the Catholic Church.
Mike
-------
∂16-Sep-88 1428 VAL nsf proposal
I left a copy of the draft on your desk. The file is nsf.tex[1,val].
∂16-Sep-88 1534 DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA re: Religion
Received: from EDWARDS-2060.ARPA by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 15:34:08 PDT
Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 15:32:04-PDT
From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
Subject: re: Religion
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <qcxnS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12431114616.10.DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
The question of Galileo is really interesting. Do you know what his major
crime was? Writing in Italian rather than in Latin! If he had written in
Latin he could have said what he wanted and no one would have cared. In the
15th Century the Church considered it had the responsibility to protect the
common uneducated people from influences that might confuse or mislead them.
Scholars, who of course spoke and wrote in Latin, were considered sophisticated
enough to be responsible for themselves, and could debate any point of view.
(This attitude is not so different from that I found in Ethiopia while the
Emperor was in power. On the University campus anyone could say anything. But
once an Ethiopian left the campus, if he spoke out in opposition to a
government point of view he was in trouble. Several professors who did so were
banished to places where they couldn't cause harm - such as cultural attache to
Moscow.)
Back to Galileo. He certainly didn't help his case by turning on his former
benefactor, who had become Pope, and writing an imaginary dialog in which the
thinly disguised Pope was made to look stupid. If he had written the dialog
in Latin he would have gotten away with it. But the Pope couldn't ignore an
attack which the common people could read.
I haven't read your Professor's book but I find it difficult to believe that
the Pope would even raise the issue of infallibility with Galileo. From the
standpoint of the Pope, Galileo wasn't particularly important. It didn't
require his personal attention, I wouldn't have thought. Besides, what was
Galileo saying that was so disturbing to an intellectual? After all, that
Polish Monk Copernicus had set the earth in motion a century before with no
great disturbance.
-------
∂16-Sep-88 1810 simpson@vax.darpa.mil [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: Call for White Papers - DARPA/IST]
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Sep 88 18:10:06 PDT
Received: from sun35.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA12225; Fri, 16 Sep 88 20:45:59 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 20:47:04-EDT
Received: by sun35.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA04143; Fri, 16 Sep 88 20:47:08 EDT
Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 20:47:04-EDT
From: Bob Simpson <SIMPSON@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: [Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>: Call for White Papers - DARPA/IST]
To: lehnert@cs.umass.edu, michele%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net,
tlp@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu, makhoul@bbn.com, MANN@venera.isi.edu,
jmc@sail.stanford.edu, mcdermott-drew@yale.arpa, mcgregor@vaxa.isi.edu,
dmm@maps.cs.cmu.edu, michalski@gmuvax2.gmu.edu, morris@intellicorp.com,
mundy@ge-crd.arpa, hy@kl.sri.com, NEVATIA@ecla.usc.edu,
newell@centro.soar.cs.cmu.edu, nilsson@score.stanford.edu,
avo@dspvax.mit.edu, dave@ssi.icst.nbs.gov, POGGIO@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu,
drr@fas.ri.cmu.edu, riseman%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net,
cue%cs.umass.edu@relay.cs.net, ROSENBLO@venera.isi.edu, ar@alv.umd.edu,
sroucos@g.bbn.com, salvesen%cpva.sainet.mfenet@nmfecc.arpa,
schank@yale.arpa, schiller@nosc.mil, stefik.pa@xerox.com,
rolf%lockheed.com@relay.cs.net, STEINBERG@rutgers.edu,
strat@iu.ai.sri.com, gjs@ai.ai.mit.edu, SWARTOUT@vaxa.isi.edu,
tseng@ecla.usc.edu, waltz@think.com, cjw@ll-sst.arpa,
WEISCHEDEL@g.bbn.com, weiss@aramis.rutgers.edu,
wilensky%larch.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
phw%mit-oz@mc.lcs.mit.edu, withgott.pa@xerox.com, zue@mc.lcs.mit.edu,
zweig%earwig@lanl.gov
Message-Id: <590460424.0.SIMPSON@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dear Colleague:
The purpose of this message is to announce that DARPA/ISTO is planning
a Principal Investigators Meeting, and all ISTO PIs are invited.
We have done our best to make it convenient to attend, although we
recognize that some conflicts are inevitable.
The meeting will be held at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Hyatt, on
14 through 18 November 1988. We will start at noon on the 14th and
end at noon on the 18th, so you can travel on those days.
Details are still being planned, and will be announced in about a
month.We are looking forward to an interesting, productive meeting.
Mark Pullen for Jack Schwartz and the staff of DARPA/ISTO
The purpose of this message is to request that you submit a Project
Summary for publication in the Meeting Notes of the upcoming DARPA/ISTO
Principal Investigators Meeting. The following information is required:
- Project title
- PI name, address, net address, phone number
- Project summary
- List one or two recent references
The information may be submitted by email to pimeet@vax.darpa.mil,
or mailed to DARPA/ISTO, ATTN: PI Meeting, 1400 Wilson Blvd,
Arlington VA 22209. Whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, the material must fit on one 8.5 by 11 inch page with 1 inch
margins, printed in 12 pt type.
If a usable Project Summary is not received from you by 14 October,
we will make one up out of whatever information we have on hand.
---------------
Received-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:42:14 EDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA10514; Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:42:14 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 09:42:27-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA17209; Fri, 16 Sep 88 09:42:28 EDT
Date: Fri 16 Sep 88 09:42:27-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Call for White Papers - DARPA/ISTO PI Meeting
To: ISTO-PI-LIST
Cc: Pullen
Message-Id: <590420547.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dear PI,
The purpose of this message is to invite you to submit topics for
discussion sessions at the upcoming DARPA/ISTO Principal Investigators
Meeting. These topics will be used by the Program Committee to
assemble several parallel discussion sessions on "new ideas".
We plan two blocks of such discussions, as well as other blocks
reporting on current research.
The following rules apply to the topics:
- must be a multi-group effort; we seek new directions for the
research community, not research proposals
- must be cross-cutting and interdisciplinary (to support the
"cross fertilization" goal of the meeting); we expect the best
minds in AI, Networking, Command and Control, Distributed Systems,
Computer Architectures, Software, VLSI Design, Robotics, and
Computer Science/Engineering in general to attend this meeting
- you must be prepared to present the idea and lead the discussion,
length detemined by the topic; could be part of a session of
short items, or have a whole session to itself (please recommend
time to be allotted)
Please submit your ideas in the form of a two-page white paper. Papers
selected for discussion will be printed in the Meeting Notes, so make
them fit on two 8.5 by 11 inch pages with 1 inch margins, printed in
12 pt type. Send them over the net to pimeet@vax.darpa.mil, or mail
to DARPA.ISTO, ATTN: PI Meeting, 1400 Wilson Blvd, Arlington VA 22209.
Papers must arrive here by 30 September to be considered.
Mark Pullen for Jack Schwartz
and the Staff of DARPA/ISTO
-------
-------
-------
∂17-Sep-88 1119 JK
John ----
Here's the first draft of the prospectus. Intended audience:
Levinthal and his friends, DARPA/ISTO, Rosenberg, and also as a
general "calling card" to be used whenever people want to know what
the project is about. In general, I view this as a marketing/sales document;
a very short version of the actual proposal. It is meant to tantalize and
tease; not to explain the enterprise fully. I will start sending this out
Tuesday (it will be properly formatted and TEXed for paper distribution then).
Comments needed.
Questions: (1) Does this look like a good sales pitch?
(2) Additions/Deletions.
(3) For the puffery at the end (ahem), I need to steal more
material from your files. Where can I find it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTELLIGENT BUSINESS COMMUNICATION
A research proposal
by
Jussi Ketonen, Stanford University
Benn Konsynski, Harvard Business School
John McCarthy, Stanford University
Abstract
We propose to study business transactions and their adaptation
to environments with computers and computer networks. The protocols
and hardware platforms required for automation of business transactions
are becoming more widely understood; our goal is to study and implement
high-level software technologies for intelligent business communication.
Current Trends in US Industry and Government
Current trends in the industry point increased interconnectivity
and automation of routine business transactions; the appropriate infrastructure
for building inter-organizational systems (IOS) is being created. This
applies not only to hardware but also for the necessary software platforms.
The implementation of structured, computer-to-computer business communication
has been recognized as necessary for increasing the competitiveness
of US industry and solving logistical problems within the US government.
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) was defined as the computer-to-computer
transmission of business information and documents. Much of the earlier
development in this area was based on private protocols and networks.
Even then, significant improvements in terms of both efficiency and
reduction of error rates in business transactions were achieved. Many
manufacturing companies are using EDI not only as the principal
means of communicating with their suppliers, but also for
intra-company communication. As the need
for EDI became more apparent in all aspects of US industry, standards were
proposed and accepted. This work culminated in the ANSI X12
standards for business transactions. They define the possible transaction sets along
with the requisite data dictionaries, segment directories, and transmission
control standards.
In short, the goal of paperless, automated business transactions
is clear. The potential benefits can be enormous: the federal government
alone issues about 1.4 billion purchase orders a year. The amount of such
paper generated by the manufacturing industry (materials tracking, inventory
reports, product location messages, etc.) is orders of magnitude higher.
We are in a position to act now in order to reduce the logistical problems and
unnecessary human intervention inherent in current procedures.
Current Needs
Full automation of routine business transactions requires more
than just defining the underlying protocols; we have to be able to
talk about business transactions, express knowledge about them, and
reason about them. The role of simple, algorithmically oriented, EDI
systems will necessarily be limited --- they will not be able to
keep up with the frequent changes in partners, protocols,
and trading conventions necessary in today's business environment.
Flexibility is one of the primary requirements. In order to
implement change one must be able mechanize the knowledge that makes
change possible.
Consider, for example, the problem of validating a purchase
order. The system must know about authorizations and authorization
levels. The system must have knowledge about the pricing and quantity
restrictions within the authorization level. The system must have
knowledge about the trading partner and enforce the constraints inherent
in the relationship. All of this can change at a moment's notice.
The problem becomes even more complex with programs automatically
generating purchase orders based on inventory data. How can we be assured
that such programs only issue valid purchase orders?
Another example: how can we talk about trading partners and
express facts about them so that the system can automatically generate
appropriate communication protocols and integrity constraints? Not
only is the ability to express knowledge about trading relationships
critical for this problem, but we must also be able to discuss and
reason about defaults: much of the knowledge available in such
situations is left implicit.
Proposed Research
Our research involves the application of the basic tools of
Artificial Intelligence (non-monotonic logic, default reasoning,
constraints, etc.) in a concrete context.
Our first goal is to define a higher-level language for expressing
knowledge about business transactions. A prototype for such a language was
proposed by McCarthy ("Common Business Communication Language") over 15
years ago.
In parallel, we will develop a case study for a large-scale
purchasing network. This will be used both as a basis for design
for the first version of the Common Business Communication Language
and as a context to test our implementation.
Secondly, we will define the necessary reasoning components
and electronic forms interfaces for business transactions.
The final phase of this project consists of the implementation
of a prototype system for intelligent business communication.
Personnel for the Project
Jussi Ketonen is a Senior Research Associate at the Computer
Science Department at Stanford University. Well known for his work
on mathematical logic and automated reasoning, his current interests
include intelligent database interfaces, reasoning about data, and
object-oriented architectures for symbolic computation systems.
As vice president of product development for MAD Intelligent Systems, Inc.,
he personally led the design and development
of MAD's database access products, user interfaces and MAD's pioneering work on
intelligent database front-ends. He was also a vice president and
one of the principal co-founders of Lucid, Inc.; the recognized industry leader
for high quality Common Lisp systems.
Benn Konsynski is a .....
John McCarthy is Charles Piggot Professor of Computer Science
at Stanford University. He has recently received the Kyoto Prize for
his pioneering work on Artificial Intelligence. Our proposal is based
on his paper on a Common Business Communication Language, published
in 1982 .....
∂17-Sep-88 1120 RPG DARPA
To: CLT
CC: JMC
I've been exchanging mail over the last day with Squires. He asks that
I put together a history of the funding for Qlisp. Carolyn, could
you send me a brief outline of the events surrounding the umbrella and
failed second half proposal that was supposed to happen last fall?
Any other important events would help me. Thanks.
-rpg-
∂17-Sep-88 1348 JK
∂17-Sep-88 1318 JMC reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 17-Sep-88 11:19-PT.]
It looks pretty good. Maybe I'll add something. Perhaps we should
add Vladimir part time.
--------------
Sure; Arkady might be interested, too. It should not matter from the
point of view of the prospectus, though. Let me know about your
additions soon; I will be gone Monday in Santa Barbara and would
like to wrap it up Tuesday.
Jussi
∂17-Sep-88 1401 JK cult of personality
And, I need a pointer to the appropriate information to dump at the end
of the paper.
∂17-Sep-88 1823 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Qlisp chronology
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 88 18:23:27 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01492; Sat, 17 Sep 88 18:20:40 PDT
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 18:20:40 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809180120.AA01492@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, clt@sail
Subject: Qlisp chronology
Carolyn and I thought it would be a good idea to come up with a list
of things in which Stanford's involvement in the Qlisp project has had
useful impact, for discussion with DARPA.
What I've done so far is scanned my file of saved Qlisp messages for
significant events from which such conclusions can be drawn, though I
haven't drawn the conclusions explicitly. There are probably some
things missing from this list.
-- Chronology of significant events in the Qlisp project --
August 1986
* Work begins under DARPA funding.
* Beginning of port of Lucid Common Lisp to Alliant. Stanford/Lucid
link not yet working, so Lucid work is slowed.
October 1986
* Weening ports Multilisp to the Alliant. Not clear whether it should
be considered a simulator or a real parallel Lisp system, and
performance figures are hard to evaluate. This leads to the
creation of a new parallel Lisp simulator designed to predict a real
machine's performance.
* Ron Goldman arrives at Lucid.
November 1986
* Meetings held to discuss clarifications and possible changes in
language definition. Some issues:
> How will dynamic variables be implemented? (deep vs. shallow binding)
> Will processes block automatically when referencing an undeter-
mined future, or will there be an explicit form for this?
> Can the semantics of catch/throw in multiple processes be better
specified? When does process killing occur?
> Should we base programming style on an assumption that process
creation is cheap or expensive?
January 1987
* Stanford/Lucid link is now working.
* Igor Rivin arrives at Stanford.
March 1987
* Initial version of uniprocessor Common Lisp for Alliant.
May 1987
* Discussion of QLAMBDA syntax and suggestions for changes.
* Weening's parallel Lisp simulator mostly implemented. Others in
Stanford group use it until Qlisp becomes usable.
* First version of QLET on Alliant. Implementation can't yet garbage
collect or allow creation of processes at arbitrary points in the
computation. Also requires explicit lock around CONS.
June 1987
* Rivin and Weening experimented with sorting algorithms on simulator.
* Common Lisp (without parallelism) now fully working on Alliant.
* Hiroshi Okuno begins experiments using limited Qlisp.
July 1987
* Dan Pehoushek arrives at Stanford. Begins work with simulator,
investigates scheduling algorithms.
October 1987
* Carol Sexton and Peter Benson join Qlisp group at Lucid.
* Rivin begins teaching course on computer algebra.
November 1987
* Improvements to Qlisp:
> Can initiate GC while running in parallel
> Automatic locking around CONS and other allocation functions
> Top-level provides timing statistics
> First version of QLAMBDA
> Can enter debugger while running in parallel (still has some bugs)
This is the first version of Qlisp that is robust enough to use in
experiments.
December 1987
* Experiments showed a bottleneck in Qlisp implementation caused by
keeping a list of blocked processes. For some programs this causes
enormous slowdown. Lucid changed the implementation to avoid this.
January 1988
* Pehoushek implements multiple-queue scheduler in Qlisp, experiments
with dynamic spawning.
* Rabinov begins experiments with polynomial GCD.
* Bugs in bignum arithmetic discovered by Rabinov's experiments and
fixed by Lucid.
* Initial implementation of deep binding in Qlisp.
February 1988
* Kelly Roach joins Stanford group, begins work with Rivin on symbolic
algebra code.
* Discussion of speedups obtainable with depth cutoff and other
methods for simple programs like FIB. Discussion of spawning and
scheduling strategies in general.
* Discussion of dynamic binding strategies (mostly between JonL White
and Hiroshi Okuno, with input from Ikuo Takeuchi in Japan).
* Qlisp changes:
> Global variables (a new concept, distinct from dynamic variables).
> Changes to locking primitives based on suggestions by Weening.
* Overhaul of catch/throw semantics proposed (Gabriel & Goldman).
March 1988
* Experiments with parallel versions of Common Lisp DOTIMES (Pehoushek).
April 1988
* Alliant now has 7 processors. (Eighth came in later.) This exposed
several performance bottlenecks: in addition to garbage collection,
which we knew about, the serialization of CONS and other allocation
functions began to have a noticeable effect on many programs.
June 1988
* Pehoushek & Weening began working on analysis of dynamic spawning.
* Qlisp changes:
> First implementation of futures. (Require explicit handling.)
* Discussion of draft of Gabriel & Goldman paper, proposing new
high-level constructs for Qlisp.
July 1988
* Analysis of the effect of resource contention on performance. This
is to determine what maximum speedup we should expect given the
existing allocation bottlenecks.
* Qlisp changes:
> QLET EAGER
> Changes to QLAMBDA syntax and semantics
> New SPAWN form and other forms
* Gabriel & Goldman present papers at parallel programming workshop
and Lisp & Functional Programming conference.
∂17-Sep-88 2147 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Re: bicycling
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 17 Sep 88 21:47:10 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Sat, 17 Sep 88 21:47:04 PDT
Date: 17 Sep 88 21:45 PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: JMC @ SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: bicycling
Date: 17 September 1988, 21:39:50 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: bicycling
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 09/17/88 15:32
Dear John,
Yes I called you at about 9:30am a numbr of times (maybe you
were in the shower). Hope you had a nice ride; Sue and I did,
we went by ourselves. We should try again next week.
Greetings,
Elliott
∂17-Sep-88 2209 JK
∂17-Sep-88 1530 JMC
{\bf McCarthy, John (1982)}: ``Common Business Communication Language'', in
{\it Textverarbeitung und B\"urosysteme}, Albert Endres and J\"urgen Reetz, eds.
R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich and Vienna 1982.
% cbcl[f75,jmc]
----------------------
I was really looking for a brief biographical blurb (not a vita)
suitable for the the format. Do you have anything like that floating around?
∂18-Sep-88 1439 RPG Appointment
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, sloan@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: bscott@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
John and Yvette:
I've talked to Betty Scott about the CPL money, and it appears to
be spendable as of September 1. Therefore, I am ready to be appointed
Senior Research Associate at a salary of $80,000 and 25% time effective
as soon as feasible. My benefits are totally covered by Lucid, so I
require nothing in that area. Please arrange for my paychecks to be
deposited in my Stanford Credit Union checking account (61178-08).
Let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks.
-rpg-
∂19-Sep-88 0000 JMC
talk to val about darpa meeting
∂19-Sep-88 0628 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu Re: common sense knowledge of continuous action
Received: from fish.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 06:28:04 PDT
Received: by fish.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/4.03)
id AA04443; Mon, 19 Sep 88 09:26:33 EDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 09:26:33 EDT
From: Paul Fishwick <fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
Message-Id: <8809191326.AA04443@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: common sense knowledge of continuous action
Prof. McCarthy:
Thanks for your message! Yes, I will respond soon. In the meantime,
I will post your message to comp.simulation. There are some real
issues involved with qual. reasoning/physics vs. traditional methods
and I feel that the time is ripe to explore them. One quick thought
which I will issue here: reasoning about "spilt water" is probably
performed by pattern matching against thousands of accumulated
patterns --- certainly, I would want a robot to know how to do
pattern matching. I do not believe, though, that there is some underlying
"calculus" (i.e. QPE,confluences) being exercised.
-paul
∂19-Sep-88 0738 JDP Pat
To: JMC
CC: CLT
She's having bronchial difficulties from the Vacaville smoke, and probably
won't be in today. -Dan
∂19-Sep-88 0750 gjs@ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU chaos
Received: from zohar (ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 07:50:49 PDT
Received: by ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:57:25 edt
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:57:25 edt
From: gjs@ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU (Gerald Jay Sussman)
Message-Id: <8809191457.AA13237@zohar>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: John McCarthy's message of 17 Sep 88 2046 PDT <CdBA2@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: chaos
Yes, it is possible. We do not know the sensitivity of the result to
variations in planetary masses. The mass of Pluto is, however, very
small, and I don't expect it to have any effect. I would worry more
about the sensitivity of the result to variations in the mass of
Uranus and Neptune. The accepted mass of Uranus changed significantly
after the last flyby and I expect the estimate of Neptune's mass to
change by a similar amount soon. The problem is that these change the
fundamental secular frequencies, thus possibly changing the resonance
structure of the outer solar system.
We are interested in exploring the whole planetary system in this way.
I am also considering making a new machine that can now be 10-100
times as fast, that can allow variable and individual step size
integration schemes.
How's hacking on the west coast? I hope you're having fun. I was
there this summer and looked around Stanford for TWinograd and for you
but neither was found.
∂19-Sep-88 0751 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Appointment
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 07:51:08 PDT
Date: Mon 19 Sep 88 07:50:26-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Appointment
To: RPG@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU, sloan@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <OdxhU@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12431817010.14.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Dick, sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I don't think we need to
appoint you as anything, since you already have the Consulting appointment.
We don't often pay Consulting faculty, but I don't know why we can't. This
is what I want to confirm, and I'll try to do this today. Your FTE salary
sounds a little steep for Stanford, so we may have to appoint you at a
greater effort percentage.
On your paycheck deposit, you must complete a form to send to Payroll, and
you need one of your deposit slips to attach to the form. Are you going to
be here soon, or do you want the form sent to you?
Betty
-------
∂19-Sep-88 0814 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu
Received: from fish.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 08:14:43 PDT
Received: by fish.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/4.03)
id AA04572; Mon, 19 Sep 88 11:13:16 EDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 11:13:16 EDT
From: Paul Fishwick <fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
Message-Id: <8809191513.AA04572@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
I very much appreciate Prof. McCarthy's response and would like to comment.
The "water glass on the lectern" example is a good one for commonsense
reasoning; however, let's further examine this scenario. First, if we
wanted a highly accurate model of water flow then we would probably
use flow equations (such as the NS equations) possibly combined with
projectile modeling. Note also that a lumped model of the detailed math
model may reduce complexity and provide an answer for us. We have not
seen specific work in this area since spilt water in a room is
of little scientific value to most researchers. Please note that I am
not trying to be facetious -- I am just trying to point out that *if* the
goal is "to solve the problem of predicting the result of continuous actions"
then math models (and not commonsense models) are the method of choice.
Note that the math model need not be limited to a single set of PDE's.
Also, the math model can be an abstract "lumped model" with less complexity.
The general method of simulation incorporates combined continuous and
discrete methods to solve all kinds of physical problems. For instance,
one needs to use notions of probability (that a water will make it
to the front row), simplified flow equations, and projectile motion.
Also, solving of the "problem of what happens to the water" need not
involve flow equations. Witness, for instance, the work of Toffoli and
Wolfram where cellular automata may be used "as an alternative to"
differential equations. Also, the problem may be solved using visual
pattern matching - it is quite likely that humans "reason" about
"what will happen" to spilt liquids using associative database methods
(the neural netlanders might like this approach) based on a huge
library of partial images from previous experience (note Kosslyn's work).
I still haven't mentioned anything about artificial intelligence yet - just
methods of problem solving. I agree that differential equations by
themselves do not comprise an epistemologically adequate model. But note
that no complex problem is solved using only one model language (such as
DE's). The use of simulation is a nice example since, in simulating
a complex system, one might use many "languages" to solve the problem.
Therefore, I'm not sure that epistemological adequacy is the issue.
The issue is, instead, to solve the problem by whatever methods
available.
Now, back to AI. I agree that "there is no theory involving DE's (etc.)
that can be used by a robot to determine what can be expected when a
glass of water is spilled." I would like to take the stronger position
that searching for such a singular theory seems futile. Certainly, robots of
the future will need to reason about the world and about moving liquids;
however, we can program robots to use pattern matching and whatever else
is necesssary to "solve the problem." I supposed that I am predisposed
to an engineering philosophy that would suggest research into a method
to allow robots to perform pattern recognition and equation solving
to answer questions about the real world. I see no evidence of a specific
theory that will represent the "intelligence" of the robot. I see only
a plethora of problem solving tools that can be used to make future
robots more and more adaptive to their environments.
If commonsense theories are to be useful then they must be validated.
Against what? Well, these theories could be used to build programs
that can be placed inside working robots. Those robots that performed
better (according to some statistical criterion) would validate
respective theories used to program them. One must either 1) validate
against real world data [the cornerstone to the method of computer
simulation] , or 2) improved performance. Do commonsense theories
have anything to say about these two "yardsticks?" Note that there
are many AI research efforts that have addressed validation - expert
systems such as MYCIN correctly answered "more and more" diagnoses
as the program was improved. The yardstick for MYCIN is therefore
a statistical measure of validity. My hat is off to the MYCIN team for
proving the efficacy of their methods. Expert systems are indeed a
success. Chess programs have a simple yardstick - their USCF or FIDE
rating. This concentration of yardsticks and method of validation
is not only helpful, it is essential to demonstrate the an AI method
is useful.
-paul
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Prof. Paul A. Fishwick.... INTERNET: fishwick@bikini.cis.ufl.edu |
| Dept. of Computer Science. UUCP: gatech!uflorida!fishwick |
| Univ. of Florida.......... PHONE: (904)-335-8036 |
| Bldg. CSE, Room 301....... FAX is available |
| Gainesville, FL 32611..... |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
∂19-Sep-88 0931 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Memory reference
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 09:31:26 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 19 Sep 88 09:27:25 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 09:27:25 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Memory reference
Hi there,
So far, this is all I've found. It's a 1976 book called THE PSYCHOLOGY
OF LEARNING AND MEMORY, by Robert G. Crowder. I believe it's at Green
Library. It's a little old, but then much of the basic memory research
was done prior to 1976. Also it's been a while since I've looked at the
book so I can't tell you much about its coverage of the semantic-episodic
distinction, but I recall it covered most of the bases. I'll keep my
eyes open for more recent info as well.
-helen
∂19-Sep-88 1154 RPG Appointment
To: BSCOTT@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
CC: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, sloan@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Not appointing me anything is fine with me. Adjusting the level of effort
to whatever achieves $20k with an acceptable Stanford salary is fine also.
If it helps you justify a particular salary, my current industrial salary
is $100k.
I will swing by tomorrow morning between 9:00 and 9:30 to sign the payroll
form.
-rpg-
∂19-Sep-88 1400 JMC
ibm menlo park, Ed Brink
∂19-Sep-88 1446 RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 14:46:08 PDT
Return-Path: <@AI.AI.MIT.EDU:dejong@wheaties.ai.mit.edu>
Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 19 Sep 88 08:59:08-PDT
Received: from life.ai.mit.edu (TCP 20015020120) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 19 Sep 88 12:04:46 EDT
Received: from rice-chex.ai.mit.edu by life.ai.mit.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 88 11:48:09 EDT
Received: by rice-chex.ai.mit.edu; Mon, 19 Sep 88 11:48:07 EDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 11:48:07 EDT
From: dejong@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Peter de Jong)
Message-Id: <8809191548.AA06943@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu>
To: cog-sci-dist@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Re: Cognitive Science Calendar
Reply-To: cog-sci-request@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
Start-Date: 7/29/88
Expiration-Date: 7/29/88
ReSent-Date: Mon 19 Sep 88 14:45:20-PDT
ReSent-From: Ramin Zabih <RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
ReSent-To: jjw@Score.Stanford.EDU, rivin@Score.Stanford.EDU,
jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
ReSent-Message-ID: <12431892542.47.RDZ@Score.Stanford.EDU>
cog-sci-calendar digest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 12:45 EDT
From: Barbara K. Moore <BARB@reagan.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: AI Revolving seminar
Thursday, September 22 4:00pm Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom
The Artificial Intelligence Lab
Revolving Seminar Series
What Computer Architects Should Do Next,
or Specialization is for Insects
Tom Knight
Abstract:
The chaos of the last decade in parallel computer architecture
is largely due to the premature specialization of parallel computer
architectures to particular programming models. The careful choice of
the correct primitives to support in hardware leads to a general purpose
parallel architecture which is capable of supporting a wide variety of
programming models.
This talk will show that low latency communication emerges as
the essential component in parallel processor design, and will
demonstrate how to use low latency communication to support other
programming models such as data level parallelism and coherent shared
memory in large processor arrays.
We are now designing a very low latency, high bandwidth, fault
tolerant communications network, called Transit. It forms the
communications infrastructure - the replacement of the bus - for a high
speed MIMD processor array which can be programmed using a wide variety
of models. Transit achieves its high performance through a combination
of techniques in many different disciplines.
The packaging of Transit is done using near isotropic density
three dimensional wiring, allowing much tighter packing of components,
and routing of wires on a 3-D grid. The network is direct contact
liquid cooled with Fluorinert. The use of custom VLSI pad drivers and
receivers provides very high speed signalling between chips. The
topology of the network provides self-routing, fault tolerant, short
pipeline delay communications between pairs of processors. And finally,
the design of the processor allows high speed message dispatching and
low latency context switch.
END OF cog-sci-calendar digest
******************************
∂19-Sep-88 1502 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Memory reference
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 15:02:40 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 19 Sep 88 14:58:36 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 14:58:36 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Memory reference
Hi there,
I would like to have lunch sometime, but tomorrow is not good.
I'm starting a new job, an NRC post doc at NASA-Ames. How about
a Saturday sometime. I'm free October 1.
-helen
∂19-Sep-88 1505 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Orals schedule
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 15:05:32 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05829; Mon, 19 Sep 88 15:02:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 15:02:26 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809192202.AA05829@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail, ullman@polya, rpg@sail, ag@amadeus
Subject: Orals schedule
It looks like Friday, October 28 at 2:15 p.m. is acceptable to
everyone as the time for my orals. Anoop Gupta has agreed to be the
fourth committee member from within the department.
As Jeff pointed out, I need to have a draft of the thesis for you all
to read before the exam. I should be able to give you a draft about
two weeks or so before the date, which hopefully is sufficient time.
Joe
∂19-Sep-88 1706 VAL
Please see nsf.bdg[1,val].
∂19-Sep-88 1723 VAL re: reply to message
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Sep-88 17:10-PT.]
This is based on Carolyn's draft. She said we are supposed to give approximate
figures for one year, and then precise computations, taking into account
salary increases, will be done by Stanford bureaucracy.
She also said it's generally better to submit several smaller proposals. Do we
want to try to divide this one into smaller parts?
∂19-Sep-88 1826 VAL re: proposal
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Sep-88 18:20-PT.]
OK. I'd like to leave early tomorrow, about 2pm (and I'll be absent all day
Wednesday) because of a Jewish holiday; can we meet in the morning or
early afternoon?
∂19-Sep-88 1828 stefik.pa@Xerox.COM review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 18:28:37 PDT
Received: from Salvador.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 19 SEP 88 18:14:27 PDT
Date: 19 Sep 88 18:14 PDT
Sender: stefik.pa@Xerox.COM
From: Mark stefik <stefik.pa@Xerox.COM>
Subject: review of Dennett's The Intentional Stance
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: stefik.pa@Xerox.COM, MGardner.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880919-181427-2895@Xerox>
Prof McCarthy,
Do you have the book already? Should we get you a copy?
I'd be delighted to get the review. I don't have a reviewer for it yet.
----- mjs:
∂19-Sep-88 1834 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU re: Memory reference
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Sep 88 18:34:27 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Mon, 19 Sep 88 18:30:22 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 18:30:22 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: re: Memory reference
Yes you can reach me as helen@psych, since I'll be keeping my account
and office, for a while anyway. I'm not wild about going to NASA, but
it's not NASA's fault, it's just that I'm not wild about change (unless
it's a very large upgrade, which this isn't...this is essentially more
of the same, only in a new place). Ok, I'll plan on Oct. 1 unless I
get a message from you otherwise. SEe you.
-helen
∂19-Sep-88 2358 VAL re: proposal
[In reply to message rcvd 19-Sep-88 18:30-PT.]
1030 is fine.
∂20-Sep-88 0338 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@RELAY.CS.NET:OKUNO@ntt-20.ntt.jp [Revolving Seminar 9/22: Tom Knight]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 03:38:01 PDT
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA07778; Tue, 20 Sep 88 03:34:48 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa13373; 20 Sep 88 4:50 EDT
Received: from ntt.jp by RELAY.CS.NET id ac18225; 20 Sep 88 4:38 EDT
Received: by ntt-sh.ntt.jp (3.2/ntt-sh-01) with TCP; Tue, 20 Sep 88 17:16:53 JST
Received: by MECL.NTT.jp (3.2/NTTcs02) with TCP; Tue, 20 Sep 88 17:15:15 JST
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 17:11:43
From: Hiroshi Gitchang Okuno <Okuno%ntt-20.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET>
Subject: [Revolving Seminar 9/22: Tom Knight]
To: qlisp%gang-of-four.stanford.edu%ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET,
aap%sumex-aim.stanford.edu%ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET
Cc: soheiG%ntt-20.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET, sokanG%ntt-20.ntt.jp@RELAY.CS.NET
Organization: NTT Software Laboratories
Group: New Unified Environments (NUE) Group
Project: Parallel Programming
Address: 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino, Tokyo 180 JAPAN
Phone: +81 (422)59-3850
Message-Id: <12431995649.24.OKUNO@NTT-20.NTT.JP>
FYI,
- Gitchang -
-------------------- Forwarded Message --------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 13:15:06 EDT
From: Barbara K. Moore <BARB@REAGAN.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Revolving Seminar 9/22: Tom Knight
To: tech-sq@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, ferrante@DSPVAX.MIT.EDU
Message-ID: <19880917164121.4.BARB@LENNON.AI.MIT.EDU>
========================================================================
AI REVOLVING SEMINAR
========================================================================
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1988
4:00 p.m.
8TH FLOOR PLAYROOM, MIT AI LAB
What Computer Architects Should Do Next
-or-
Specialization is for Insects
Tom Knight
The chaos of the last decade in parallel computer architecture
is largely due to the premature specialization of parallel computer
architectures to particular programming models. The careful choice of
the correct primitives to support in hardware leads to a general purpose
parallel architecture which is capable of supporting a wide variety of
programming models.
This talk will show that low latency communication emerges as
the essential component in parallel processor design, and will
demonstrate how to use low latency communication to support other
programming models such as data level parallelism and coherent shared
memory in large processor arrays.
We are now designing a very low latency, high bandwidth, fault
tolerant communications network, called Transit. It forms the
communications infrastructure - the replacement of the bus - for a high
speed MIMD processor array which can be programmed using a wide variety
of models. Transit achieves its high performance through a combination
of techniques in many different disciplines.
The packaging of Transit is done using near isotropic density
three dimensional wiring, allowing much tighter packing of components,
and routing of wires on a 3-D grid. The network is direct contact
liquid cooled with Fluorinert. The use of custom VLSI pad drivers and
receivers provides very high speed signalling between chips. The
topology of the network provides self-routing, fault tolerant, short
pipeline delay communications between pairs of processors. And finally,
the design of the processor allows high speed message dispatching and
low latency context switch.
-------
∂20-Sep-88 0658 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu
Received: from fish.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 06:57:59 PDT
Received: by fish.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/4.03)
id AA05637; Tue, 20 Sep 88 09:55:41 EDT
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 09:55:41 EDT
From: Paul Fishwick <fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
Message-Id: <8809201355.AA05637@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Ok, I will not send this to a mailing list. However, I sent the past
messages to comp.simulation and comp.ai since you had sent your
first message to ailist (i.e. comp.ai/comp.ai.digest). There is a
response from Dick Nance that you can read in the simulation mailing
list (comp.simulation) when my next issue comes out, or I can send it
to you directly.
The example that you provide concerning the pile of papers certainly
sounds like a difficult problem; however, I would think that this
problem should be made very specific so that one can get a handle
on it. For instance, the problem might be stated as "sort through
all papers and pick out only those papers that have some identifying
characteristic." The problem must be stated unambiguously, otherwise,
solutions will be too general and not specific enough for encapsulation
into the robot.
You are correct about my remarks on pattern recognition as being
vague. They are vague simply because the problem of recognizing "shape
from motion" in computer vision is a difficult one. However, this
is what must be done if the robot is to succeed. Note that any theory
on actions to take when a liquid is spilt presupposes solutions to
the "moving liquid" pattern recognition problem. So when I discuss
the pattern recognition problem, I am discussing a problem that must
be addressed first before one deals with the manipulation of induced
concepts at some higher level. To a great extent, then, I see theories
of commensense reasoning as "jumping the gun." One must first solve
the pattern recognition problem. I am certainly not an authority on
computer vision and would be interested in hearing about problems
associated with the recognition of moving liquids given frames obtained
via a robots camera.
I believe that most of the commonsense theories about the physical world
are very interesting and belong in the domain of "philosophical inquiry."
This is in no way meant as a slur -- philosophical inquiry has always
been at the heart of knowledge and learning. I don't believe, on the
other hand, that these theories have serious scientific merit since there
is little or no attempt at validation. Thus, I am concerned when I
hear "claims" of individuals having developed some new "qualitative
calculus." Qualitative calculi can be obtained using lumped system
concepts found in the systems and simulation area. Furthermore, the
a qualitative model must have some clear advantage if it is to be
proposed --- for instance a qualitative model derived through
a homomorphic mapping which preserves behavior. A decrease in
complexity is a good yardstick for measuring whether or not a
qualitative model is useful. I am not sure how one would measure
"epistemological adequacy." If someone can tell me precisely how to
measure it then perhaps this criterion is a good one also.
If a researcher can "study how a human would solve a problem" and derive
an algorithm that is an improvement over standard methods then I think
that this is great and reflects well on AI in general. An expert rule
in MYCIN, for example, is important because it expresses knowledge
otherwise unencoded (usually in a domain such as medicine where
insufficient quantitative information is known). In physics or
engineering; however, I remain unconvinced that commonsense theories
have anything to offer yet. I often hear about "how easy it is is
for humans to reason about basic actions." I find the premise "easy"
to be most likely false. We don't know how we reason and we don't know
how our eyes and brain can simultaneously perform simple calculations.
The scientific approach would seem to be to concentrate on the
computer vision problem first and only then build algorithms that
"solve the problem" of spilt water.
In summary, I would like to see someone take a problem like "detecting
spilt water (or its trajectory)" from a more microcosmic viewpoint.
Break the problem down into many subproblems each of which can be
validated. Building a commonsense calculus or theory simply makes one wonder
"What criteria can we use to test Theory ABC against Theory XYZ?"
Let's crawl first, then walk. I like your idea of having a contest.
Perhaps, through such a mechanism, we can get a better idea of the
various subproblems that need to be addressed to answer questions
that *appear* simple such as "How do I reason about water falling
from the lectern?"
-paul
∂20-Sep-88 0938 JDP Pat
To: JMC
CC: MPS
She will not be in today. -dan
∂20-Sep-88 1000 JMC
phone number to Bob Gunther.
∂20-Sep-88 1520 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 15:19:52 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA21167; Tue, 20 Sep 88 17:59:26 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 18:00:37-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA01273; Tue, 20 Sep 88 18:00:40 EDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 18:00:37-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <590796037.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software PIs:
This note contains some advice and suggestions for those of you who
are briefing Jack Schwartz next week. I am sending this in response
to the large number of requests for this kind of advice. This list of
points is provided in order to anticipate the kinds of questions that
Jack is most likely to ask. I recognize that many of these points are
obvious. In any case, these are only suggestions -- you should
prepare a briefing that you are comfortable with.
If you have any concern about the briefing, please feel free to call
me or send a note. I'll be here Thursday and Friday.
Bill
1. The appointments are 30 minutes long, and there is no slack in the
schedule. I suggest that you prepare for 20-25 minutes of briefing
and 5-10 minutes of discussion. To be on the safe side, prepare 30
minutes of material with some natural truncation points. Attending
the briefing will be you and anyone you choose to bring with you, Jack
Schwartz, Steve Squires, and myself.
2. Assume that Jack already accepts the overall program goals and
motivation. Emphasize technical substance, accomplishment model (see
below), and technology transfer issues. Try to cover goals and
motivation in one slide. But make sure the big picture comes across.
3. Show technical substance. Provide exhortatory and motivational
slides only as required for your specific technical approach. Provide
an idea of the concrete nature of your results. Do this in a "flat"
manner -- that is, try to use neutral terminology that is commonly
accepted and understood. This doesn't mean going into all the details
of proofs and designs -- rather, try to quickly get to the point of
real engagement with technical issues. Give Jack an issue to wrangle
with.
4. Show detail, and show examples. If you are involved in language
design, show some examples of texts in the language. If you are doing
engineering work, describe the user/client view of the prototype
components produced, including some idea of the abstract interfaces
you are designing. If you are doing theoretical work, give some
concrete examples of your results.
5. Provide a user model, and discuss what you are doing to facilitate
technology transfer. Who are your "customers"? What are the results
of your work that your "customers" are most interested in? Provide
some evidence that you are working on problems that are of some
ultimate importance. If you are doing engineering, then give an idea
of what it will be like to use your system (possibly as the designer
of a client program). If you are developing theory, discuss who will
use your results and for what purpose. It is not acceptable to say
that you will merely throw results over the wall in the hope that
somebody else will pick them up. Finally, indicate how your work
relates to work that others are doing.
6. Provide an accomplishment model. That is, indicate how someone
outside your project can gauge your progress by probing, say, every
six months. The best way to present this is in the form of a time
line with some small number of milestones (4 or so) that a customer of
the project results can use to measure progress. (Obviously, it
doesn't make sense to say that you will have proved a theorem by
such-and-such a date, but try to provide some expectations
nonetheless.)
7. Expose your critical decision points as part of the accomplishment
model. If you are doing engineering, then what are your critical
design decisions, and what is your strategy for making them? Often,
the most important engineering results are interface designs, not
actual components. If you are doing theory, what alternative
hypotheses are you considering for the major questions of interest,
and what approach are you using to settle the question?
8. Provide some indication of how efforts in this area could be scaled
up. What are the major opportunities lurking out there, if only you
(or DARPA) had the funds to invest?
-------
∂20-Sep-88 1522 CLT pullen msg
I don't know why he can't ask you direclty, but what shall I tell him?
Maybe you want to reply directly. (please cc me so I know what is up.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 18:03:35-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: qlisp
To: CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: pullen@vax.darpa.mil, boesch@vax.darpa.mil
Carolyn,
I am badly overdue to respond to your 8 Sep message on QLisp.
The problem is rather complex, and it is necessary that I make
time to work on the details.
In the meanwhile, I have a request. We would like to invite
John to present the luncheon talk at the PI Meeting on
Tuesday, 15 November. As the recent recipient of a prestigious
award, it is only fitting that he address the PI community.
Could you kindly confirm with John right away, so we can print
the meeting notice?
Mark
-------
∂20-Sep-88 1622 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: luncheon speech
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 16:22:38 PDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA21436; Tue, 20 Sep 88 19:20:44 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 19:20:33-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA21792; Tue, 20 Sep 88 19:20:34 EDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 19:20:33-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: luncheon speech
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: pullen@vax.darpa.mil, CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <590800833.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <Oez3h@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John,
We could probably switch you and Bob Kahn, who has been invited for
the 16th. I will ask him.
Thanks,
Mark
-------
∂20-Sep-88 1635 ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 16:35:33 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Tue, 20 Sep 88 16:35:22 PDT
Date: 20 Sep 88 16:33 PST
From: ELLIOTT%SLACVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: JMC @ SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject:
Date: 20 September 1988, 16:32:55 PST
From: Bloom, Elliott (415)-926-2469 ELLIOTT at SLACVM
To: JMC at SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject:
In-Reply-To: JMC AT SAIL.STANFORD.EDU -- 09/18/88 16:05
493-2571 (has a message machine), 493-2592.
∂20-Sep-88 1639 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU [sprite@spur.Berkeley.EDU (Sprite OS on SPUR): Hello World]
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 16:39:07 PDT
Received: from LOCALHOST by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09850; Tue, 20 Sep 88 16:35:37 PDT
Resent-Message-Id: <8809202335.AA09850@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Return-Path: <@SAIL.Stanford.EDU:DELAGI@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Received: from Sail.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09733; Tue, 20 Sep 88 16:13:57 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 16:16:29 PDT
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 14:25:54 PDT
From: Bruce A. Delagi <DELAGI@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [sprite@spur.Berkeley.EDU (Sprite OS on SPUR): Hello World]
To: aap@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <12432151147.24.DELAGI@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Resent-To: qlisp@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 16:35:34 PDT
Resent-From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Return-Path: <sprite@spur.Berkeley.EDU>
Received: from ernie.Berkeley.EDU by SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Mon, 19 Sep 88 17:41:49 PDT
Received: from spur.Berkeley.EDU by ernie.Berkeley.EDU (5.59/1.29)
id AA04278; Mon, 19 Sep 88 17:14:05 PDT
Received: by spur.Berkeley.EDU (5.59/1.25)
id AA468781; Mon, 19 Sep 88 17:18:27 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 17:18:27 PDT
From: sprite@spur.Berkeley.EDU (Sprite OS on SPUR)
Message-Id: <8809200018.AA468781@spur.Berkeley.EDU>
To: world@ernie.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Hello World
Hello World!
The purpose of this message is to officially announce that the SPUR
computer and the Sprite operating system are running well enough to
support a variety of user processes. For example, this message was
sent from SPUR using the the sendmail program. The SPUR hardware and
software were designed from scratch by the students, staff, and
faculty of the University of California at Berkeley. The system is
currently running in the lab, and has been up since September 15.
SPUR stands for Symbolic Processing Using RISCs. Each SPUR processor
board contains a 120,000 transistor custom CMOS 32-bit RISC CPU with 8
bits of tag support for Lisp and a 60,000 transistor custom CMOS
cache controller chip with invalidation-based snooping plus
off-the-shelf parts for the 128KB cache and memory interface.
SPUR workstations can contain up to twelve processors,
although our current prototype is running as a uniprocessor.
Sprite is a network operating system with a UNIX-like kernel call
interface but a completely new kernel that provides a high-performance
network file system and process migration. The SPUR project spans from
custom VLSI chips through boards, operating systems, compilers, and
multiprocessor applications. This project was funded primarily by
DARPA/ISTO, with additional support from the National Science Foundation
and chips and PC boards fabricated by the MOSIS implementation service
of ISI. A number of corporate sponsors have contributed equipment, money,
time, and advice.
We still have more we hope to do:
Get Common Lisp running on a uniprocessor SPUR;
Put our custom Floating Point chip on the board (it just arrived);
Debug the multiprocessor support on the SPUR board;
Debug the multiprocessor support in Sprite.
We expect to reach these milestones over the next several months,
but for now we are now going to our local brewery to celebrate!
Dave Patterson, P.I.
Computer Science Division / EECS
University of California at Berkeley
P.S. Email replies may be sent to spur@ginger.Berkeley.EDU
-------
∂20-Sep-88 2209 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 22:09:50 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 20 Sep 88 22:09:46 PDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 22:09:46-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: SSP Forum
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590821786.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <13SpWg@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Sorry about the delay in the reply, but we did not finally get around
to planning the forum till recently. Would you like to do your
presentation, "Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge and Reasoning in
Mathematical Logic," early or late? My preference would be early, but
this would be up to you.
The logistics: we meet every friday at 3:15. The presentation should go
about 50 minutes to an hour and there will be time for questions after-
ward. Generally, we have met (and will try to meet again) in room 62n,
in building 60. This is the symbolic systems building, if you need
directions ask. If possible, a short (4-5 sentence) abstract would be
very nice since we may be printing it out on the CSLI calender and
would possibly attract more people. The level of the talk should
be focused on a scientific american level audience or a bit higher.
Incidentally, as you may know, I am doing an honors thesis which
includes you. Could we meet sometime and discuss it? (We could also discuss
the forum.)
reid
-------
∂20-Sep-88 2241 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 22:41:01 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 20 Sep 88 22:40:57 PDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 22:40:57-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: SSP Forum
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590823657.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <#ecSm@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Yes on both counts! Say tues or wens of next week?
-------
∂20-Sep-88 2248 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU re: SSP Forum
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 20 Sep 88 22:48:48 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Tue, 20 Sep 88 22:48:45 PDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 22:48:44-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: SSP Forum
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590824124.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Ced1o@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Ok.
see you then
reid
-------
∂21-Sep-88 1111 fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu my list
Received: from fish.cis.ufl.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 11:11:43 PDT
Received: by fish.cis.ufl.edu (5.59/4.03)
id AA06516; Wed, 21 Sep 88 12:24:12 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 12:24:12 EDT
From: Paul Fishwick <fishwick@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
Message-Id: <8809211624.AA06516@fish.cis.ufl.edu>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: my list
I am posting our recent inquires (minus the header stuff) to my
mailing list comp.simulation. I will not post anything to the AI
list as you specified. The reason for the comp.simulation posting is
that I would like to "keep the momentum going" -- there are other
people responding to our messages (at least on comp.simulation), so
I want to keep things running smoothly. By the way, if you ever
are interested in reading the simulation mailing list, you can either
"read news" at Stanford or I can include you on my private mailing
list.
-paul
∂21-Sep-88 1209 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: luncheon speech
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 12:09:32 PDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA23592; Wed, 21 Sep 88 15:07:30 EDT
Posted-Date: Wed 21 Sep 88 15:07:05-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA22611; Wed, 21 Sep 88 15:07:07 EDT
Date: Wed 21 Sep 88 15:07:05-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: luncheon speech
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: pullen@vax.darpa.mil, CLT@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <590872025.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <Oez3h@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
John,
I spoke with Bob Kahn and we switched dates. You are
on for the 16th.
Mark
-------
∂21-Sep-88 1429 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 14:29:33 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 21 Sep 88 14:28:13-PDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 14:23:58 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Facilities Committee Meeting
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12432412938.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Friends, I'm trying to arrange a first meeting of the CSD Facilities Committee
this academic year, before I leave town for 3 weeks on October 7. Can we meet
the morning of Tuesday, October 12, from 10:00 - 12:00? If that is a problem,
please let me know what would be an acceptable time during the week of the 3rd
before Friday. Agenda items I have accumulated include:
1) "State of CSD/CF" report -- technical status, fiscal status, usage data and
trends, etc.
2) CSDS/CF plans/problems for this coming year:
- Network server/workstation upgrades and expansions
- Continued (cost-effective?) support of old systems (e.g., SAIL and SCORE)
- R&D projects on-going and planned (e.g., fiber optics networks?).
- Vendor relations and initiatives (DEC, SUN, Apple, NeXT, etc.)
- User charges and access policies.
3) Long range plans for NWC.
Let me know of other items we should consider. Tom R.
-------
∂21-Sep-88 1445 JK
∂21-Sep-88 1304 JMC
cbcl[e88,jmc] Prose for cbcl proposal
We propose to study languages for communication of business
transaction information between computers belonging to separate
organizations and develop language features that will be an
improvement on the languages presently used for electronic data
interchange (EDI). The improvement will be in the direction of
increasing the variety of messages that may be transmitted without
requiring revisions of the language. This will be accomplished by
taking into account useful features of natural language and also
developments in artificial intelligence, especially recent work in
formalizing nonmonotonic reasoning.
Some of our proposals for improvement are described in
(McCarthy 1983), but they will be reconsidered and extended
in the light of the EDI systems that have been developed and
more recent AI and natural language research.
------------------------
This is a significant improvement over my efforts. However,
marketing-wise the emphasis on language (especially the natural kind)
may push us too close in peoples eyes to the Winograd/Flores camp.
I spent some time reading the Winograd/Flores book on "computers
and human cognition" in the bookstore
(could not make myself buy it --- do you have a copy of it?)
and also found the related work of Malone at MIT Sloane School.
They all talk about "workgroups" and managing via electronic
communication and structured discourse. All very vague and
philosophical. Malone's Infolens project has similarities.
Therefore, I believe our product differentiation lies in:
--- concreteness of the underlying domain in terms of
business transactions to be studied and EDI substrate.
--- our strength in reasoning, non-monotonic logic, etc.
Incidentally, I am about to volunteer you for a lunch with the
retail management folks from university of Santa Clara. Any objections?
Do you have time next week?
∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
Received: from acf4.NYU.EDU (NYU-ACF4.ARPA) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 14:48:53 PDT
Received: by acf4.NYU.EDU (5.54/25-eef)
id AA02335; Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:47:25 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:47:25 EDT
From: Martin Davis <davism@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809212147.AA02335@acf4.NYU.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Hi John,
Greetings! I have decided to apply for a position in the Graduate
School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. I
would be very grateful if you would once again serve as one of my
references. I include as part of this message the text of the
announcement of the positions. I'm also sending as two additional
messages the resume and statement of "qualifications and
interests" that I propose to include with my application.
Please let me know whether you will be willing. The address to
which the letter should be sent is part of the included
announcement, and, as stated there, the deadline for receipt of
letters is November 1.
Thank you very much,
Martin
****************************************************************
EDUCATION IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Pending Budgetary approval, three professorships are to be filled
by the Graduate School of Education, starting July 1989. Applicants at all
levels (tenure and tenure-track) are encouraged to apply. Successful
applicants will join Berkeley's outstanding program of research, doctoral
education, and professional training concerned with education in
mathematics, science, and technology. The program is strongly
interdisciplinary, with an emphasis on the educational applications of
cognitive science and computers. Candidates should preferably possess a
strong background in a mathematical, computational, or cognitive science.
They should have demonstrable excellence in research, teaching, and
applied interests in instructional improvement.
Applicants should send a resume, a statement describing
qualifications and interests, and the names of at least three references
to:
EMST Search Committee
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
so as to be received by November 1, 1988. They should ask their references
to send letters directly to the Committee by this deadline.
∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
Received: from acf4.NYU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 14:48:56 PDT
Received: by acf4.NYU.EDU (5.54/25-eef)
id AA02340; Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:47:59 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:47:59 EDT
From: Martin Davis <davism@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809212147.AA02340@acf4.NYU.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
QUALIFICATIONS AND INTERESTS
Martin Davis
As a researcher I am best described as a mathematical
logician with a longstanding interest in computer science. In the
field of automated deduction (which is of course an important
part of artificial intelligence), I am regarded as a "pioneer."
The anthology "Automation of Reasoning: Classical Papers on
Computational Logic 1957-1966" published in 1983 begins with a
historical article that I wrote and includes four research papers
of which I was author or coauthor. In fact the very first
research paper in the collection is my report dated 1957 on a
computer program I had written (in 1954) to carry out
Pressburger's procedure for additive arithmetic. The program was
written (in absolute binary) for a computer now housed in
Washington in the Smithsonian. Although my technical interests
have been quite varied, I've continued from time to time, to make
contributions to this field, and I am an editor of the Journal of
Automated Reasoning. I was asked to write an article for the
Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence and to be a commentator
for an article The Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
My book "Computability and Unsolvability" which appeared
in 1958 was the first attempt in print to present an exposition
of the mathematical work of Godel, Turing, Church, and Post in a
manner that made contact with the already rapidly developing
computer technology. This book has been translated into Chinese,
Italian, and Japanese. It continues to live as a Dover reprint,
and it has been described both by logicians and by computer
scientists as a "classic." My book "Applied Nonstandard Analysis"
has also been translated: into Japanese and Russian.
Mathematicians know me best for my work on the tenth
problem on the famous list that David Hilbert had presented in
1900. Hilbert had asked for an algorithm to test polynomial
equations (in many unknowns) for the possession of integer
solutions. In a paper that I coauthored with Hilary Putnam and
Julia Robinson in 1961 (based in part on results from my
dissertation), we proved that if the class of equations is
expanded to permit exponents as unknowns, no such algorithm is
possible. We also showed that if even one polynomial equation
could be found whose solutions (in a suitable sense) grow
exponentially, then the same could be said of Hilbert's problem
as originally posed. In 1970, Yuri Matijasevich completed the
work by exhibiting such an equation.
After Matijasevich's breakthrough, I made some additional
contributions to the subject, and wrote one and coauthored
another expository articles on Hilbert's tenth problem. One,
coauthored with Reuben Hersh, was written for the Scientific
American and received the coveted Chauvenet Prize of the
Mathematical Association of America. A second, written for the
American Mathematical Monthly, was addressed to mathematicians.
It received two prizes, the Lester R. Ford Prize of the
Mathematical Association of America and the Leroy P. Steele Prize
of the American Mathematical Society. I was especially gratified
to receive these awards because I have always been very
interested in mathematical exposition. My abilities as an
expositor were also recognized by the Mathematical Association of
America by appointing me Earle Raymond Hedrick Lecturer. I was
asked to contribute an essay to the collection "Mathematics
Today" which was intended to help non-mathematicians to
appreciate contemporary mathematics. I also wrote the section on
"Theoretical Computer Science" for a report prepared in 1982 by
the National Research Council for the Congress of the United
States.
I have always liked to teach and have been a popular teacher.
In the Fall of 1972, I was presented the "Award for Superior
Teaching" by the Courant Institute Student Council. I have just been
an invited participant in a panel discussion at Logic Colloquium '88
in Padua, Italy on the teaching of logic. I have taught "in-service"
courses for high school teachers and Saturday courses for
mathematically gifted high school students. At New York University,
I've had many conversations with Anneli Lax about her innovative
basic course in "mathematical thinking"; a number of my ideas
apparently proved to be useful. In recent years my teaching has
mostly been at the graduate level, and I have had 21 successful
doctoral students, some of whom have had Ph.D. students of their own.
In the last few years my research has concentrated in two
quite disparate directions: a project to develop a theory of
software testing and a study of the historical interplay of logic
and computer science. In the first of these, we have sought appropriate
mathematical models of aspects of the empirical process that is
called software testing. Although we have obtained some
interesting insights, the field remains quite daunting. The other
direction, I find a fascinating exercise in intellectual history,
and would want to continue with it should I become a member of
the Graduate School of Education at Berkeley.
In addition to the letters of recommendation that are
being sent, you might also wish to consult some of the following
people at Berkeley: John Addison and Leon Henkin in Mathematics,
William Craig in Philosophy, Manual Blum and Richard Karp in
Computer Science, all of whom know me reasonably well.
I have just begun a term as chair of the Computer Science
Department at NYU, and were I to come to Berkeley, it would
represent a radical career shift. But, at least on my side, it
feels like a very appropriate one. Berkeley itself is a great
attraction for many reasons. But more important, the shift in
career focus excites me. While my computer science research has
been largely theoretical, I really do thoroughly enjoy using
computers in a hands-on mode. Although, I have never been
involved in serious research concerning the use of computers for
educational purposes, the challenging possibilities have long fascinated me.
Finally, the thought that my work might actually have an effect
in alleviating the critical social problem of widespread ignorance
of science and mathematics is very appealing.
∂21-Sep-88 1449 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU
Received: from acf4.NYU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 14:49:28 PDT
Received: by acf4.NYU.EDU (5.54/25-eef)
id AA02344; Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:48:28 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 17:48:28 EDT
From: Martin Davis <davism@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809212148.AA02344@acf4.NYU.EDU>
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Martin Davis
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
New York University
251 Mercer Street
New York, NY 10012
(212)-998-3102
Born on March 8, 1928 in New York City
EDUCATION:
City College of New York, B.S. 1948
Princeton University, M.A. 1949, Ph.D. 1950
ACADEMIC POSITIONS:
Professor of Mathematics, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
New York University, 1965- . Joint appointment in Mathematics and
Computer Science, 1969 - . Chair of Computer Science 1988- .
Associate Professor and Professor of Mathematics, Belfer Graduate
School of Science, Yeshiva University, 1960-65.
Research Scientist and Adjunct Associate Professor of Mathematics, New
York University, 1959-60.
Assistant Professor and Associate Professor of Mathematics, Hartford
Graduate Division, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1956-59.
Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Ohio State University, 1955-56.
Assistant Professor of Mathematics, University of Calif. Davis, 1954-55.
Visiting Member, School of Mathematics, Inst. for Adv. Study, 1952-54.
Research Instructor in Mathematics, University of Illinois, 1950-52.
VISITING APPOINTMENTS:
Westfield College, University of London, England, 1968-69.
Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, 1970-71.
University of California, Berkeley (Mathematics and Computer Science)
and Stanford University (Artificial Intelligence Laboratory), 1976-77.
University of California, Santa Barbara, 1978-79.
University of California, Berkeley 1983-84.
HONORS AND AWARDS:
Leroy P. Steele Prize, American Mathematical Society, January 1975.
Chauvenet Prize, Mathematical Association of America, January 1975.
Lester R. Ford Prize, Mathematical Assoc. of America, January 1975.
Earle Raymond Hedrick Lecturer 1976, Mathematical Association of America.
Fellow of the A.A.A.S., January 1982.
Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, 1983-84.
CONSULTED AT VARIOUS TIMES FOR:
Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J.
Applied Logic Inc., Princeton, N.J.
IBM Research Laboratories, Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE:
Editorial Boards: Journal of Symbolic Logic, Journal of the Association
for Computing Machinery. Journal of Automated Reasoning.
Served on MAA award committees for Chauvenet Prize and Hedrick
Lecturer.
Served on American Mathematical Society Nominations Committee.
Served on Nominations Committee, Section A, A.A.A.S.
Chairman, Nominations Committee, Association for Symbolic Logic
Chairman, Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Employment
Security of the American Mathematical Society.
Wrote section on "Theoretical Computer Science" for "Outlook for
Science and Technology - The Next Five Years," 1982, prepared by the
National Research Council for the Congress of the United States.
Served on Program Committee of Fifth Conference on Automated
Deduction; Local Arrangements Chairman for Sixth Conference on
Automated Deduction.
Chairman of committee to select first winner of prize for a
"landmark" contribution to automatic theorem proving.
Member of Program Committee for 1989 meeting on "Logic in
Computer Science."
INVITED PRESENTATIONS AT PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES:
"Applications of Recursive Function Theory to Number Theory,"
Symposium on Recursive Function Theory, American Mathematical Society,
New York, April 1961.
"Eliminating the Irrelevant from Mechanical Proofs," Symposium on
Experimental Arithmetic, American Mathematical Society, April 1962.
"Unsolvable Problems," Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Automata,
New York, April 1962.
"First Order, Second Order, and Higher Order Logic," Association for
Symbolic Logic, Washington, D.C., December 1963.
"Diophantine Equations and Recursive Sets," and "Recursive Functions -
An Introduction," NATO Advanced Study Institute on Automata, Ravello,
Italy, June 1964.
"Computability," Symposium on System Theory, New York 1965.
"One Equation to Rule Them All," New York Academy of Sciences, March
1968.
"Hilbert's Tenth Problem," London Mathematical Society, London, England,
March 1969.
"Speed-up Theorems and Diophantine Equations," Courant Computer
Science Symposium on Computational Complexity, New York, October 1971.
"The Unsolvabilty of Hilbert's Tenth Problem," Joint meeting of American
Mathematical Society and Association for Symbolic Logic, St. Louis,
March 1972.
"Whither Mechanical Theorem-Proving?" Tagung uber automatisches
Beweisen, Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut, Oberwolfach, Germany,
January 1976.
"Three Lectures on Some Mathematical Applications of Logic: I.
Unsolvable Problems; II. Diophantine Sets; III. Nonstandard
Analysis," Earle Raymond Hedrick Lectures, Mathematical Association of
America, Toronto, August 1976.
"Takeuti Models and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics," Symposium
on Infinitesimals, Iowa City, May 1977.
"Boolean-Valued Models in Set Theory, Analysis, and Quantum Mechanics,"
Chauvenet Symposium, Mathematical Association of America, Atlanta,
January 1978.
"What is a Computation," Symposium on Mathematics Today, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Houston, January 1979.
"The Prehistory and Early History of Automated Deduction," Fourth
Workshop on Automated Deduction, Austin, February 1979.
"Why Didn't Godel Have Church's Thesis?" Recursion Theoretic Aspects of
Computer Science, Purdue University, May 1981.
"Diophantine Representation of Arithmetic Propositions," New York
Academy of Sciences, March 1982.
"Formal Proof and Mathematical Practice," Symposium on New Kinds of
Mathematical Proof (with Hilary Putnam, K.I. Appel, Stephen Cook, Marvin
Minsky, and Marshall Stone), American Philosophical Association,
Philadelphia, April 1982.
"Logic and Computation," Symposium on Philosophy of Computation, Brown
University, November 1982.
"Relations between Mathematical Logic and Computer Science," Symposium
on Mathematical Logic, Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
University of Kyoto, Japan, October 1983.
"Teaching the Incompleteness Theorem," Panel Discussion on
Teaching of Logic, Logic Colloquium '88, Padua, Italy, August
1988.
"Trends in Logic: Relations with Computer Science," Panel
Discussion on Trends in Logic, Logic Colloquium '88, Padua,
Italy, August 1988.
Doctoral Dissertations Supervised
1. Eric Wagner, "Uniformly Reflexive Structures: Towards an Abstract
Theory of Computability," Columbia University, 1963.
2. Robert DiPaola, "On Pseudo-Complements of Recusively Enumerable
Sets," Yeshiva University, 1964.
3. Donald Loveland, "Recusively Random Sequences," New York University,
1964.
4. Robert Case, "Partial Predicates," Yeshiva University, 1966.
5. Martin Zuckerman, "Finite Versions of the Axiom of Choice," Yeshiva
University, 1967.
6. Saul Levy, "Computational Equivalence," Yeshiva University, 1970.
7. John Denes (now called John Grant), "Definable Automorphisms in Model
Theory," New York University, 1970.
8. Richard Gostanian, "The Next Admissable Ordinal," New York
University, 1971.
9. Donald Perlis, "Ackermann's Set Theory and Related Topics," New York
University, 1972.
10. Daniel Gogol, "Models of Formulas in Various Languages," Yeshiva
University, 1973.
11. Keith Harrow, "Sub-Elementary Classes of Functions and Relations,"
New York University, 1973.
12. William Gewirtz, "Investigations in the Theory of Descriptive
Complexity," New York University, 1974.
13. Edward Schwartz, "Existential Definability in Terms of Some
Quadratic Functions," Yeshiva University, 1974.
14. Barry Jacobs, "Alpha Computational Complexity," New York
University, 1975.
15. Richard Rosenberg, "Recusively Enumerable Images of Arithmetic
Sets," New York University, 1976.
16. Jean-Pierre Keller, "Abstract Forcing and Applications," New York
University, 1977.
17. Allen Goldberg, "On the Complexity of the Satisfiability Relation,"
New York University, 1979.
18. Moshe Koppel, "Bases of Recursively Enumerable Relations," New York
University, 1980.
19. Ron Sigal, "Undecidable Complexity Statements in a Hierarchy of Ex-
tensions of Primitive Recursive Arithmetic," New York University, 1983.
20. Elia Weixelbaum, "Formal Languages with Oracles," New York
University, 1983.
21. Eugenio Omodeo, "Decidability and Proof Procedures for Set Theory
with a Choice Operator," New York University, 1984.
PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS:
1."On the Theory of Recursive Unsolvability," Doctoral Dissertation,
Princeton University, May 1950.
2."On the Existence of Certain Orderings in the Plane," Control Systems
Laboratory, University of Illinois, Report I-28, May 1951.
3."Arithmetical Problems and Recursively Enumerable Predicates," Journal
of Symbolic Logic, vol. 18(1953), pp. 33-41.
4."Mathematical Procedures for Decision Problems: A Program for
Presburger's Algorithm for Additive Number Theory on the Institute for
Advanced Study Digital Computer," Office of Ordnance Research Project
1333, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, October 1954.
5."A Note on Universal Turing Machines," Automata Studies, C.E. Shannon
and J. McCarthy, editors, Annals of Mathematics Studies, Princeton
University Press, 1956.
6."The Definition of Universal Turing Machine," Proceedings of the
American Mathematical Society, vol.8(1957), pp. 1125-1126.
7.Computability and Unsolvability, McGraw-Hill, New York 1958; reprinted
with an additional appendix, Dover 1983.
8.(with Hilary Putnam) "Reductions of Hilbert's Tenth Problem," Journal
of Symbolic Logic, vol.23(1958), pp. 183-187.
9.(with Hilary Putnam) "Feasible Computational Methods in the
Propositional Calculus," Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, October 1958.
10.(with Hilary Putnam) "A Computational Proof Procedure; A Finitely
Axiomatizable System for Elementary Number Theory; On Hilbert's Tenth
Problem," AFOSR Report TR59-124, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
October 1959.
11."A Program for Presburger's Algorithm," Summaries of Talks Presented
at the Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell University, 1957,
Institute for Defense Analyses, 1960, pp. 215-223; reprinted in, Siekmann,
Jorg and Graham Wrightson (eds), Automation of Reasoning, vol. 1,
Springer Verlag, 1983, pp. 41-48.
12."Computable Functionals of Arbitrary Finite Type," Summaries of Talks
Presented at the Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell
University, 1957, Institute for Defense Analyses, 1960, pp. 242-246.
13.(with Hilary Putnam) "A Computing Procedure for Quantification
Theory," Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol.7(1960),
pp. 201-215; reprinted in, Siekmann, Jorg and Graham Wrightson (eds),
Automation of Reasoning, vol. 1, Springer Verlag, 1983, pp. 125-139.
14.(with Hilary Putnam and Julia Robinson) "The Decision Problem for
Exponential Diophantine Equations," Annals of Mathematics, vol.74(1961),
pp. 425-436.
15."Aspects of Mechanical Theorem-Proving," Proceedings of Third
International Congress on Cybernetics, Namur, Belgium, 1961, pp. 415-418.
16.(with George Logemann and Donald Loveland) "A Machine Program for
Theorem Proving," Communications of the Association for Computing
Machinery, vol.5(1962), pp. 394-397; reprinted in, Siekmann, Jorg and Graham
Wrightson (eds), Automation of Reasoning, vol. 1, Springer Verlag, 1983,
pp. 267-270.
17."Unsolvable Problems: A Review," Proceedings of the Symposium on
Mathematical Theory of Automata, 1962, pp. 15-22.
18."Applications of Recursive Function Theory to Number Theory,"
Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 5(1962), pp. 135-138.
19.(with Hilary Putnam) "Diophantine Sets over Polynomial Rings," Illinois
Journal of Mathematics, vol.7(1963), pp. 251-255.
20."Extensions and Corollaries of Recent Work on Hilbert's Tenth
Problem," Illinois Journal of Mathematics, vol.7(1963), pp. 246-250.
21."Eliminating the Irrelevant from Mechanical Proofs," Proceedings of
Symposia in Applied Mathematics, vol.15(1963), pp. 15-30. reprinted in,
Siekmann, Jorg and Graham Wrightson (eds), Automation of Reasoning, vol.
1, Springer Verlag, 1983, pp. 315-330.
22.(with T.J. Chinlund, P.G. Hinman, and M.D. McIlroy) "Theorem-Proving by
Matching," Bell Telephone Laboratories, June 1964.
23.(editor) The Undecidable, Raven Press 1965.
24."Recursive Functions - An Introduction," Automata Theory, E.R.
Caianello, editor, Academic Press,1966, pp. 153-163.
25."Diophantine Equations and Recursively Enumerable Sets," Automata
Theory, E.R. Caianello, editor, Academic Press,1966, pp. 146-152.
26."Computability," Proceedings of the Symposium on System Theory,
Brooklyn, N.Y. 1966, pp. 127-131.
27.Lectures on Modern Mathematics, Gordon and Breach, 1967.
28.First Course in Functional Analysis, Gordon and Breach, 1967.
29."Recursive Function Theory," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul
Edwards, editor, Macmillan and Free Press, 1967, vol.7, pp. 89-95.
30."One Equation to Rule Them All," Rand Memorandum, RM-5495-PR,
February 1968.
31."One Equation to Rule Them All," Transactions of the New York
Academy of Sciences, Sec. II, vol.30(1968), pp. 766-773.
32."An Explicit Diophantine Definition of the Exponential Function,"
Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol.24(1971), pp. 137-145.
33.(with Reuben Hersh) "Nonstandard Analysis," Scientific American,
vol.226(1972), pp. 78-86.
34."On the Number of Solutions of Diophantine Equations," Proceedings
of the American Mathematical Society, vol.35(1972), pp. 552-554.
35."Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable," American Mathematical
Monthly, vol.80(1973), pp. 233-269; reprinted in Davis, Martin,
Computability and Unsolvability, Dover 1983.
36.(with Reuben Hersh) "Hilbert's Tenth Problem," Scientific American,
vol.229(1973), pp. 84-91; reprinted in Abbott, J.C. (ed.) The Chauvenet
Papers, vol. 2, pp. 555-571, Math. Assoc. America, 1978.
37.(with N. Z. Shapiro) "Uncrackable Data Banks," Rand Report R-1382-NSF,
November 1973.
38."Speed-up Theorems and Diophantine Equations," Computational
Complexity, Randall Rustin, editor, Algorithmics Press, 1973, pp. 87-95.
39.(with Yuri Matijasevic and Julia Robinson) "Hilbert's Tenth Problem:
Diophantine Equations: Positive Aspects of a Negative Solution,"
Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol.28(1976), pp. 323-378.
40.Applied Nonstandard Analysis, Interscience-Wiley, 1977.
41.(with Rona Gurkewitz and David L. Yarmush) "LOGIK, A Special Purpose
Language for Writing Theorem-Provers," Courant Institute Report
IMM-413, October 1976.
42."Minimal Entailment," Stanford University Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, December 1976.
43.(with J.T. Schwartz) "Extensibility of Verifiers" in Courant Institute
Computer Science Report NSO-12, October 1977.
44."Unsolvable Problems," Handbook of Mathematical Logic, Jon Barwise,
editor, North-Holland, 1977, pp. 567-594.
45."A Relativity Principle in Quantum Mechanics," International Journal
of Theoretical Physics, vol.16(1977), pp. 867-874.
46."What is a Computation?" Mathematics Today: Twelve Informal Essays,
L. A. Steen, editor, Springer-Verlag, 1978, pp. 241-267.
47.(with J.T. Schwartz) "Metamathematical Extensibility for Theorem
Verifiers and Proof-Checkers," Computers and Mathematics with
Applications, vol.5(1979), pp. 217-230.
48."Notes on the Mathematics of Non-Monotonic Reasoning," Artificial
Intelligence, vol.13(1980), pp. 73-80.
49."Obvious Logical Inferences," Proceedings of the Seventh Joint
International Congress on Artificial Intelligence, 1981, pp. 530-531.
50.(with Elaine J. Weyuker) "Pseudo-Oracles for Non-Testable Programs,"
ACM '81 Conference Proceedings, pp. 254-257.
51."Why Godel Didn't Have Church's Thesis," Information and Control,
vol.54 (1982), pp. 3-24.
52."Lectures at 'Atlanta State'," Annals of the History of
Mathematics, vol.4(1982), pp. 370-371.
53."The Prehistory and Early History of Automated Deduction," Siekmann,
Jorg and Graham Wrightson (eds), Automation of Reasoning, vol. 1,
Springer Verlag, 1983, pp. 1-28.
54.(with Elaine J. Weyuker) Computability, Complexity, and Languages,
Academic Press, 1983.
55.(with Elaine J. Weyuker) "A Formal Notion of Program-Based Test Data
Adequacy," Information and Control, vol.56(1983), pp. 52-71.
56."Church's Thesis," Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley.
57."Mathematical Logic and the Origin of Modern Computers," Studies
in the History of Mathematics, pp. 137-165. Mathematical
Association of America, 1987. Reprinted in The Universal Turing
Machine - A Half-Century Survey, Rolf Herken, editor, pp. 149-174.
Verlag Kemmerer & Unverzagt, Hamburg, Berlin 1988; Oxford University
Press, 1988.
58.(with Elaine J. Weyuker) "Metric Space Based Test Data Adequacy
Criteria," The Computer Journal, vol. 31(1988), pp. 17-24.
59."Influences of Mathematical Logic on Computer Science," in The
Universal Turing Machine - A Half-Century Survey, Rolf Herken,
editor, pp. 315-326. Verlag Kemmerer & Unverzagt, Hamburg, Berlin
1988; Oxford University Press, 1988.
∂21-Sep-88 2015 davism@acf4.NYU.EDU Re: reply to message
Received: from acf4.NYU.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 20:15:48 PDT
Received: by acf4.NYU.EDU (5.54/25-eef)
id AA04907; Wed, 21 Sep 88 23:13:56 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 23:13:56 EDT
From: Martin Davis <davism@acf4.NYU.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809220313.AA04907@acf4.NYU.EDU>
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: reply to message
Thank you very much. I have also asked Moschavakis at UCLA who can
certainly write about me as a logician. (I haven't had as prompt a
reply from him as from you - but if he says "No" I'll ask another
mathematical logician.)
A month from now will be just fine since the deadline is Nov. 1.
Shall I prompt you, or is that unnecessary ?
Martin
∂21-Sep-88 2252 cheriton@Pescadero.stanford.edu Fax
Received: from Pescadero (Pescadero.Stanford.EDU) by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 21 Sep 88 22:52:16 PDT
Received: by Pescadero (5.54/Ultrix2.0-B)
id AA15310; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:53:01 PDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:53:01 PDT
From: "David Cheriton" <cheriton@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <8809220553.AA15310@Pescadero>
To: jmc@sail.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Fax
John,
Did you ever do anything on the fax issue. I am tempted to go out
and buy a fax machine (around $1000) but wonder whether there should
be a dept solution.
∂22-Sep-88 0806 BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU Sail line
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 08:06:33 PDT
Date: Thu 22 Sep 88 07:58:56-PDT
From: Steven Bjork <BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Sail line
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12432604990.10.BJORK@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The mux should work fine with the only change being the increase of the
baud rate on your one line (Sail tty44). The rates are on the little door
that opens on the mux, Sail's line 44 is the first channel on the mux.
This channel's baud rate is controlled by s3 1:4, for 2400 baud (the
current setting) the switches are open(1), open(2), closed(3), closed(4).
To get 4800 baud, the setting are closed(1), open(2), closed(3), closed(4).
In english, just change switch three number one from open to closed.
The mux reset switch should then be pressed to insure that things get
changed.
I'm assuming your DataMedia terminal has the keyboard programmable
baud rate, otherwise some soldering will have to be done in order to
get 4800 baud.
My phone number is 723-1303. When the mux gets reset I can change
the baud rate on the Sail line, and things "should" be ok.
Computer Facility group has decided to lay me off at the end of the month.
It was a bit surprising to me since they had just hired another person to
do the same kind of things I do (hardware support). I have talked to
Ralph Gorin, and he seems to have a position I could fill in his group.
At least I'll still be able to follow the su.etc "discussions". (grin)
--Steve
-------
∂22-Sep-88 1039 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: questions about philosophical terminology
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 10:39:26 PDT
Received: by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 22 Sep 88 10:40:18 PDT
Date: Thu 22 Sep 88 10:40:17-PDT
From: David Israel <ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: questions about philosophical terminology
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590953217.0.ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <7btOD@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
I've returned from england; when would you like to get together?
Mornings are best for me.
--david
-------
∂22-Sep-88 1049 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU re: questions about philosophical terminology
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 10:49:40 PDT
Received: by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Thu, 22 Sep 88 10:50:28 PDT
Date: Thu 22 Sep 88 10:50:27-PDT
From: David Israel <ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: questions about philosophical terminology
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <590953827.0.ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <1cfYMr@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
tomorrow at 10 in Cordura (that's the official name, I think) is fine;
I'm in room 221.
-------
∂22-Sep-88 1419 MPS
Stacey Green from NE Asia Forum (3-2085) called asking
when you would be in Japan for the Innamori prize. The
people at the Stanford-Kyoto Center would like to extend an
invitation to you while you are there. I said I would ask
and have you call her back.
Pat
∂22-Sep-88 1604 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 16:04:18 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA27015; Thu, 22 Sep 88 18:45:48 EDT
Resent-Message-Id: <8809222246.AA03362@sun45.darpa.mil>
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03362; Thu, 22 Sep 88 18:46:43 EDT
Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 17:59:26 EDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA21167; Tue, 20 Sep 88 17:59:26 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 18:00:37-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA01273; Tue, 20 Sep 88 18:00:40 EDT
Date: Tue 20 Sep 88 18:00:37-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: SUGGESTIONS for preparing the briefings
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <590796037.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Resent-Date: Thu 22 Sep 88 18:46:40-EDT
Resent-From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Resent-To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
To the Software PIs:
This note contains some advice and suggestions for those of you who
are briefing Jack Schwartz next week. I am sending this in response
to the large number of requests for this kind of advice. This list of
points is provided in order to anticipate the kinds of questions that
Jack is most likely to ask. I recognize that many of these points are
obvious. In any case, these are only suggestions -- you should
prepare a briefing that you are comfortable with.
If you have any concern about the briefing, please feel free to call
me or send a note. I'll be here Thursday and Friday.
Bill
1. The appointments are 30 minutes long, and there is no slack in the
schedule. I suggest that you prepare for 20-25 minutes of briefing
and 5-10 minutes of discussion. To be on the safe side, prepare 30
minutes of material with some natural truncation points. Attending
the briefing will be you and anyone you choose to bring with you, Jack
Schwartz, Steve Squires, and myself.
2. Assume that Jack already accepts the overall program goals and
motivation. Emphasize technical substance, accomplishment model (see
below), and technology transfer issues. Try to cover goals and
motivation in one slide. But make sure the big picture comes across.
3. Show technical substance. Provide exhortatory and motivational
slides only as required for your specific technical approach. Provide
an idea of the concrete nature of your results. Do this in a "flat"
manner -- that is, try to use neutral terminology that is commonly
accepted and understood. This doesn't mean going into all the details
of proofs and designs -- rather, try to quickly get to the point of
real engagement with technical issues. Give Jack an issue to wrangle
with.
4. Show detail, and show examples. If you are involved in language
design, show some examples of texts in the language. If you are doing
engineering work, describe the user/client view of the prototype
components produced, including some idea of the abstract interfaces
you are designing. If you are doing theoretical work, give some
concrete examples of your results.
5. Provide a user model, and discuss what you are doing to facilitate
technology transfer. Who are your "customers"? What are the results
of your work that your "customers" are most interested in? Provide
some evidence that you are working on problems that are of some
ultimate importance. If you are doing engineering, then give an idea
of what it will be like to use your system (possibly as the designer
of a client program). If you are developing theory, discuss who will
use your results and for what purpose. It is not acceptable to say
that you will merely throw results over the wall in the hope that
somebody else will pick them up. Finally, indicate how your work
relates to work that others are doing.
6. Provide an accomplishment model. That is, indicate how someone
outside your project can gauge your progress by probing, say, every
six months. The best way to present this is in the form of a time
line with some small number of milestones (4 or so) that a customer of
the project results can use to measure progress. (Obviously, it
doesn't make sense to say that you will have proved a theorem by
such-and-such a date, but try to provide some expectations
nonetheless.)
7. Expose your critical decision points as part of the accomplishment
model. If you are doing engineering, then what are your critical
design decisions, and what is your strategy for making them? Often,
the most important engineering results are interface designs, not
actual components. If you are doing theory, what alternative
hypotheses are you considering for the major questions of interest,
and what approach are you using to settle the question?
8. Provide some indication of how efforts in this area could be scaled
up. What are the major opportunities lurking out there, if only you
(or DARPA) had the funds to invest?
-------
∂22-Sep-88 1623 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU Faculty Report
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 16:23:37 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA19098; Thu, 22 Sep 88 16:20:29 PDT
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1988 16:20:26 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim,
rwf@sail, genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.Stanford.EDU,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail,
mayr@polya.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail, jcm@polya.Stanford.EDU,
nilsson@tenaya, oliger@pride, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score,
ullman@score, wiederhold@sumex-aim
Cc: bscott@score, chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Faculty Report
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.590973626.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
My apologies but I made an error in the date of my previous
message........the date should be for academic year 1987-88. Following is a
corrected version. Thanks.
September 18, 1988
Stanford University
School of Engineering
Annual Faculty Report for Academic Year 1987-88
It is time again for a Faculty Report. This office finds it very useful to
have the information outlined below, and I appreciate you taking time to fill
out the form carefully. I realize that this represents only a summary
of your contributions to the School and misses completely your goodwill
and spirit which are equally important to our mission.
Please give this completed form to your departmental secretary by
December 1, 1988. Thanks for your help with this chore and
for your contributions to the School and the University.
Cordially,
Jim Gibbons,
Dean
(Please note: Information requested pertains to the period 9/1/87 to
8/31/88 only.)
NAME__________________________________________________________
Last, First, Middle
ACADEMIC RANK_________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT____________________________________________________
Teaching: (Please indicate by quarter, course title, number of units and
enrollment. Also include course or curriculum development, computer education
software tutorials, specially prepared television presentations or other
relevant work.)
Advising:
Number of freshman advisees -----
Number of other undergraduate advisees -----
Number of graduate advisees. Do not
include your PhD students. -----
Supervision of Ph.D. Candidates:
Number of students for which you
are principal dissertation advisor. -----
Number of students for which you
are on reading committee. -----
Publications: (Please indicate nature of work, such as books,
monographs, journals, technical reports, etc., giving title, date, pages and
publisher or issuing agency. Include only items actually published and for
archival journals, include papers accepted for publication. Do not include
papres submitted for publication.)
Books and contributions to books.
Archival Journal Articles.
Refereed Symposia Publications.
Technical Reports.
Presentations at Meetings and Symposia.
Research Projects:
Project title and Names of Principal Approx. annual dollar
Funding Source and co-Principal value of project for
Investigators, which you are
if any responsible.
University Service Other Than Teaching and Research: (Include
administrative duties and committee work.)
Professional Activities Outside the University: (Include offices in
professional organizations, services to government agencies or industry,
editorship of journals, and outside adminstrative or
public service.)
Honors and Awards:
Describe below any relevant activities or make any comments that do not fit
under previous categories.
-------
-------
∂22-Sep-88 1752 nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu Faculty Report
Received: from Tenaya.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 17:51:56 PDT
Received: by Tenaya.stanford.edu (4.0/SMI-DDN)
id AA03238; Thu, 22 Sep 88 17:42:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 88 17:42:11 PDT
From: nilsson@Tenaya.stanford.edu (Nils Nilsson)
Message-Id: <8809230042.AA03238@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
To: chandler@polya.stanford.edu
Cc: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim,
rwf@sail, genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.stanford.edu,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail,
mayr@polya.stanford.edu, jmc@sail, jcm@polya.stanford.edu,
oliger@pride, pratt@polya.stanford.edu, shoham@score, ullman@score,
wiederhold@sumex-aim, bscott@score, chandler@polya.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: "Joyce R. Chandler"'s message of Thu, 22 Sep 1988 16:20:26 PDT <CMM.0.87.590973626.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Subject: Faculty Report
Last year, Betty Scott arranged with the various Dept. secretaries
to do a "first pass" on this form---filling in that information which
already exists in Department databases, etc. May we assume that
Betty will do this again? -Nils
∂22-Sep-88 1753 chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU 1987-1988 Faculty Report
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 22 Sep 88 17:53:09 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA11819; Thu, 22 Sep 88 13:30:54 PDT
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1988 13:30:44 PDT
From: "Joyce R. Chandler" <chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
To: binford@coyote, cheriton@pescadero, dill@amadeus, feigenbaum@sumex-aim,
rwf@sail, genesereth@score, goldberg@polya.Stanford.EDU,
guibas@dec.com, ag@amadeus, dek@sail, latombe@coyote, zm@sail,
mayr@polya.Stanford.EDU, jmc@sail, jcm@polya.Stanford.EDU,
nilsson@tenaya, oliger@pride, pratt@polya.Stanford.EDU, shoham@score,
ullman@score, wiederhold@sumex-aim
Cc: chandler@polya.Stanford.EDU, bscott@score
Subject: 1987-1988 Faculty Report
Message-Id: <CMM.0.87.590963444.chandler@polya.stanford.edu>
Following is an on-line version of the subject report information. I will be
sending you hard copies very shortly. Please note that the date for
completion of this report is 12/1/88.
Stanford University
School of Engineering
Annual Faculty Report for Academic Year 1988-89
It is time again for a Faculty Report. This office finds it very useful to
have the information outlined below, and I appreciate you taking time to fill
out the form carefully. I realize that this represents only a summary
of your contributions to the School and misses completely your goodwill
and spirit which are equally important to our mission.
Please give this completed form to your departmental secretary by
December 1, 1988. Thanks for your help with this chore and
for your contributions to the School and the University.
Cordially,
Jim Gibbons,
Dean
(Please note: Information requested pertains to the period 9/1/88 to
8/31/89 only.)
NAME__________________________________________________________
Last, First, Middle
ACADEMIC RANK_________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT____________________________________________________
Teaching: (Please indicate by quarter, course title, number of units and
enrollment. Also include course or curriculum development, computer education
software tutorials, specially prepared television presentations or other
relevant work.)
Advising:
Number of freshman advisees -----
Number of other undergraduate advisees -----
Number of graduate advisees. Do not
include your PhD students. -----
Supervision of Ph.D. Candidates:
Number of students for which you
are principal dissertation advisor. -----
Number of students for which you
are on reading committee. -----
Publications: (Please indicate nature of work, such as books,
monographs, journals, technical reports, etc., giving title, date, pages and
publisher or issuing agency. Include only items actually published and for
archival journals, include papers accepted for publication. Do not include
papres submitted for publication.)
Books and contributions to books.
Archival Journal Articles.
Refereed Symposia Publications.
Technical Reports.
Presentations at Meetings and Symposia.
Research Projects:
Project title and Names of Principal Approx. annual dollar
Funding Source and co-Principal value of project for
Investigators, which you are
if any responsible.
University Service Other Than Teaching and Research: (Include
administrative duties and committee work.)
Professional Activities Outside the University: (Include offices in
professional organizations, services to government agencies or industry,
editorship of journals, and outside adminstrative or
public service.)
Honors and Awards:
Describe below any relevant activities or make any comments that do not fit
under previous categories.
-------
∂23-Sep-88 0824 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Re: Faculty Report
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 88 08:23:59 PDT
Date: Fri 23 Sep 88 08:04:21-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Faculty Report
To: nilsson@Tenaya.Stanford.EDU, chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU
cc: binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU,
dill@Amadeus.Stanford.EDU, feigenbaum@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
rwf@Sail.Stanford.EDU, genesereth@Score.Stanford.EDU,
goldberg@Polya.Stanford.EDU, ag@Amadeus.Stanford.EDU,
dek@Sail.Stanford.EDU, latombe@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, zm@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
mayr@Polya.Stanford.EDU, jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU, jcm@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
oliger@Pride.Stanford.EDU, pratt@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
shoham@Score.Stanford.EDU, ullman@Score.Stanford.EDU,
wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, chandler@Polya.Stanford.EDU,
BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <8809230042.AA03238@Tenaya.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <12432868119.13.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Nils, I can do this, but we are getting started early enough this year that I
thought the faculty could arrange this directly with their own secretaries.
I will be glad to assist them as needed, but it was really time-consuming for
me last year and I don't have much help with this kind of information gather-
ing.
Betty
-------
∂23-Sep-88 1020 VAL re: reference
[In reply to message rcvd 22-Sep-88 21:49-PT.]
Lifschitz, Vladimir (1987).
Formal Theories of Action. In: F. M. Brown (ed.),
{\it The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence}, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 35--58.
Reprinted in: M. L. Ginsberg (ed.), {\it Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning},
Morgan-Kaufmann, pp. 410--432.
∂23-Sep-88 1051 CLT Bing
Fri Oct 28 is fine.
How long does the tour last
∂23-Sep-88 1103 JK proposal
Do you have a revised version of the abstract?
∂23-Sep-88 1156 LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU book request
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 88 11:56:46 PDT
Date: Fri 23 Sep 88 11:54:46-PDT
From: Math/Computer Science Library <LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: book request
To: jmc@Sail.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12432910065.33.LIBRARY@Score.Stanford.EDU>
The following item(s) will be held for you through 9/30/88 at the math
and computer sciences library. Please note that if you did not leave
us your name, the item will be held at the front desk under your user
name. If you are no longer interested in seeing this item, please let us
know as soon as possible (library@score) as other patrons may be waiting
for it. Thanks!
Item(s) being held:
Finetti-
Theory of probability: a critical introductory treatment
-------
∂23-Sep-88 1322 weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU Gang-of-Four
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 23 Sep 88 13:22:49 PDT
Received: by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA09602; Fri, 23 Sep 88 13:19:51 PDT
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 88 13:19:51 PDT
From: Joe Weening <weening@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809232019.AA09602@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Gang-of-Four
Did Prof. Ferziger discuss his students' use of Gang-of-Four with you?
(I told the student who asked for an account to ask him to call you.)
What should I do about this request for an account?
∂23-Sep-88 1646 Great-Pumpkin Restored Files
Here is a status report on your PUMPKIN requests:
Tape File Status
P1868 AJT.MEM[1,JMC]←AJT.MEM[ESS,JMC] Tape not found by operator
∂23-Sep-88 1654 JK meeting
At UC Santa Clara, 12am, friday, october 7th.
This is the earliest date we could make.
∂24-Sep-88 1345 bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@relay.ubc.ca IJCAII Research Excellence Award
Received: from relay.ubc.ca by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 24 Sep 88 13:45:41 PDT
Received: by relay.ubc.ca (5.59/1.14)
id AA24256; Sat, 24 Sep 88 13:44:11 PDT
Date: 24 Sep 88 13:42 -0700
From: Wolfgang Bibel <bibel%vision.ubc.cdn@relay.ubc.ca>
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Message-Id: <1911*bibel@vision.ubc.cdn>
Subject: IJCAII Research Excellence Award
John,
May I personally and confidentially ask you for your opinion whom from
the following alphabetical list you personally would like to see
succeed you in receiving the IJCAII Research Excellence Award:
Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, Nils Nilsson
On the one hand I would understand if you would rather not like to
comment. On the other, having set the norm as the first recipient, your
own opinion would certainly be a valuable guide. If you decide to
respond let me know whether I then could share this information with
the search committee consisting of Amarel, Bundy and Mackworth.
Best regards,
Wolfgang
∂26-Sep-88 0926 EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Psychnet
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 09:25:46 PDT
Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Sun, 25 Sep 88 22:20:39 PDT
Received: by UHUPVM1 (Mailer X1.24) id 6401; Sun, 25 Sep 88 22:25:39 CDT
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 88
From: Psychology Newsletter and Bulletin Board <EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-to: EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Psychnet
Hello
If you are not a subscriber to the Bitnet Psychology Newsletter a
would like to add your name, please send your reply to me at the userid
and node above. There is no charge from us for the subscription. If
you already have a subscription, please ignore this notice. A sample
issue follows below.
Yours truly,
Robert C. Morecock, Ph.D.
Editor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
! * * * B I T N E T P S Y C H O L O G Y N E W S L E T T E R * * * !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Volume 3, Number 22, September 11, 1988 Circulation 941 !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
! From the Ed. Psych. Dept., University of Houston, Texas 77004 !
! Robert C. Morecock, Editor !
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Topics:
1. USSR and Electronic Mail Networking with the Western World
2. Senate Testimony on Educational Electronic Mail Networking
3. Steven Pinker and Stevan Harnad on 'Rules and Learning'
4. New Journal - Interacting with Computers - Paper Call
5. Free Statistical Hardware for Students
and Free Clinical Assessment System Software for Students
-- Walter Hudson
6. Files Arriving at the Bulletin Board Since the Last Issue
7. How to Retrieve Bulletin Board Files
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(For discussion of above or other topics send your
comments to userid Epsynet at node Uhupvm1 on Bitnet.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USSR Academy of Sciences and EARN
This letter is from the Feedback section of the BITNET publication NetMonth,
August 1988 edition, edited by Chris Condon. The topic is that of the USSR
Academy of Sciences having requested a connection to the EARN network for
their computers ...
From: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Subject: More on Russia and networking...
Some comments on David Hibler's July editorial: First, let me
correct you on one point. The Soviet Union has requested
connection to the network but not to BITNET - rather to EARN.
If you are in favor of open communication paths then perhaps
the United States and people within BITNET should stop using
geocentricism when assuming that all networks revolve around
them. True, many do, but the fact that Russia (and Hungary and
Bulgaria) have requested EARN membership and not BITNET
membership should say something to you.
The major problem of connecting all these communist countries
to the network is not a security fear. It is the US Dept of
Commerce that forbids it. Whenever any country buys a
supercomputer from the United States (Cray or ETA for example)
they are required to sign a very stringent agreement with the
US Dept of Commerce that that supercomputer will not be made in
any way shape or form available to communist countries - which
includes via electronic methods. The US Dept of Commerce
realized that one way around the trade ban would be for a non-
aligned nation to order a Cray XMP/48 and install an M1 (2Mb)
line to Moscow. True, the computer never made it over the
border, but its computing power would be sent over the border.
So, all EARN sites (as well as many Canadian sites) that have a
super computer connected directly or indirectly to BITNET or
EARN would have to *renegotiate* their contract with the US
Dept of Commerce. Feelers are being made in that direction,
but the game is just in the early innings so it is too early to
tell if the US Dept of Commerce will relent and alter the
supercomputer licences already issued.
EARN has been working over the past year on accepting various
new countries to their network. Voting was concluded last year
for four new countries and their ratification was formally
approved:
Algeria - University of Annaba
Cyprus - University of Cyprus
Luxembourg - CEPS/INSTEAD
Yugoslavia - UNESCO International Centre
Last month two new countries have been ratified as valid for
EARN and they are:
Morocco - EMI
India - Tata Institute
Currently, EARN is discussing requests from 3 eastern countries
to join EARN, principal among them is the USSR:
Hungary
USSR - USSR Academy of Sciences
Bulgaria
There are various legal problems with this and it may be some
time before a formal decision is reached.
Just thought I'd let you all know how things are currently
rather than the usual speculation and philosophy behind this
topic.
Hank Nussbacher
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. King, President of EDUCOM, recently testified before the
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the United States Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Discussing the formation of a national educational and research network,
King stated that "there is a broad consensus among government, education,
and industry leaders that creation of a high-speed national research and
education computer network is a critical national priority."
The complete text of the testimony is available for the Psychology
Bulletin Board in the file SENATE TESTIMON . -- Ed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PINKER AND STEVAN HARNAD ON 'RULES AND LEARNING'
Recently Steven Pinker presented a paper on aspects of cognitive psychology
to a major international convention. Steven Harnad has replied to that
paper, followed by counter-replies from Dr. Pinker. The set of six
commentaries are contained in the file HARNAD PRINCE on the Psychology
Bulletin Board, and provide a good example of how electronic mail
networking can facilitate the work of science by providing rapid
communication among scholars. The files are reprinted from another
electronic mail list. (Ed.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mdw@INF.RL.AC.UK
INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS - CALL FOR PAPERS
The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS will provide a new international forum for
communication about HCI issues betwen academia and industry.
It will allow information to be disseminated in a form
accessible to all HCI practitioners, not just to academic researchers.
This new journal is produced in conjunction with the BCS
Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group. Its aim is to stimulate ideas
and provoke widespread discussion with a forward-looking perspective.
A dialogue will be built up between theorists, researchers and human
factors engineers in academia, industry and commerce thus fostering
interdisciplinary dependencies.
The journal will initially appear three times a year. The first issue
of INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS will be published in March 1989.
Each issue will contain a large number of fully refereed papers
presented in a form and style suitable for the widest possible
audience. All long papers will carry an executive summary for those who would
not read the paper in full. Papers may be of any length but content will be
substantial. Short applications-directed papers from industrial contributors
are actively encouraged.
Every paper will be refereed not only by appropriate peers but also by experts
outside the area of specialisation. It is intended to support a continuing
commentary on published papers by referees and journal readers.
The complete call for papers is in the file JOURNAL INT-COMP
available from the Psychology Bulletin Board -- Ed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Walter Hudson AIWWH@ASUACAD
FREE STATISTICAL SOFTWARE FOR STUDENTS -- The WALMYR Publishing
Co. has released a free Student Edition of the "Statistical
Package for the Personal Computer" or SPPC Program. It is NOT
public domain software. It is copyrighted and cannot be modified
in any manner. However, you may copy the Student Edition of the
SPPC Program and give a copy to every student in your class,
school, college or university. Or, you may install the SPPC on a
local area network or LAN system and thereby make it available to
all students.
If you would like to have a copy of the Student Edition of the
SPPC program, send four formatted blank diskettes and a stamped
self-addressed return mailer to the Software Exchange, School of
Social Work, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287. Please
note: Diskettes will not be returned unless adequate postage is
enclosed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Walter Hudson AIWWH@ASUACAD
FREE CLINICAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR STUDENTS -- Walter Hudson
has just released a FREE Student Version of the "Clinical
Assessment System" or CAS program which may be used for classroom
or field practicum training in psychiatry, clinical psychology,
social work, counseling and other human service professions. It
is an extensive system which enables future clinical
practitioners to learn computer-based clinical assessment and
progress monitoring. It is shipped with 20 clinical scales ready
for use and the CAS program is designed for interactive use with
clients. Administers and scores the scales and sends graphic
output to the screen, disk files, and printer. If you want a
copy of the CAS program, send three formatted blank floppies and
a stamped self-addressed return mailer to the Software Exchange,
School of Social Work, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
NOTE: Diskettes will NOT be returned unless adequate postage is
enclosed.
The Student Version of the CAS program may be copied for and
distributed to virtually every student in your school, department
or university. The aim of this FREE Student Edition is to
encourage students to learn how to monitor and evaluate their
clinical practice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILES ARRIVING SINCE THE LAST ISSUE
________________________________________________________________________
FILENAME FILETYPE | (Posting Date) FILE CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIDSNEWS 57 (09.01.88) AIDS Newsletter
AIDSNEWS 58 (09.01.88) AIDS Newsletter
AIDSNEWS 59 (09.01.88) AIDS Newsletter
AIDSNEWS 60 (09.05.88) AIDS Newsletter
AIDSNEWS 61 (09.05.88) AIDS Newsletter
AIDSNEWS SIGNUP How to get the latest AIDS news automatically
BITNET SERVERS (09.01.88) - other fileservers on Bitnet
COMPUTER SOCV3N24 (09.05.88) Computer and Society Digest
CRTNET 150 (09.05.88) Communications Research and Theory Newsletter
CRTNET 151 (09.05.88) Communications Research and Theory Newsletter
CRTNET 152 (09.08.88) Communications Research and Theory Newsletter
FONETIKS 880901 (09.09.88) Phonetics Newsletter
HARNAD PRINCE (09.10.88) S.Harnad&S.Pinker discuss 'On Rules&Learning'
JOURNAL INT-COMP (09.10.88) New Journal Paper Call-'Interacting w/Computers'
MEDNEWS VOL1N33 (09.02.88) Health Info-Com Network Newsletter
MEDNEWS VOL1N34 (09.05.88) Health Info-Com Network Newsletter
MEDNEWS VOL1N35 (09.09.88) Health Info-Com Network Newsletter
NETMONTH 1988AUG (09.05.88) Bitnet MONTHLY news magazine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO REQUEST FILES
Most (but not quite all) Bitnet users of this service can request files
interactively from userid UH-INFO at node UHUPVM1. If your request is
valid and the links between your node and the University of Houston are
all operating, your request will be acknowledged automatically and your
file will arrive in a few seconds or minutes, depending on how busy the
system is. To make the request use the same method you use to 'chat' or
talk interactively with live users at other nodes. From a CMS node this
might look like:
TELL UH-INFO AT UHUPVM1 PSYCHNET SENDME filename filetype
from a VAX system it might look like:
SEND/REMOTE UH-INFO@UHUPVM1 PSYCHNET SENDME filename filetype
At other Bitnet sites (or if these fail for you) check with your local
computer center for the exact syntax. If you are not at a Bitnet site
(or if within Bitnet you cannot 'chat' or talk interactively with live
people at other nodes) send an electronic mail letter to userid EPSYNET
at node UHUPVM1 with your request, including a comment that your site
cannot send interactive commands. Bob Morecock will send out your
requested file, usually the same day that your letter arrives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** End of Psychology Newsletter **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
∂26-Sep-88 0943 israel@russell.Stanford.EDU Re: Sorry I forgot
Received: from russell.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 09:43:37 PDT
Received: by russell.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Mon, 26 Sep 88 09:08:29 PDT
Date: Mon 26 Sep 88 09:08:29-PDT
From: David Israel <ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sorry I forgot
To: JMC@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <591293309.0.ISRAEL@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <GgDvY@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
That's OK; but I'll be gone myself from Oct. 11 - 20th.
-------
∂26-Sep-88 1025 MPS phone call
Maugham Masson of IBM called. He will call again.
∂26-Sep-88 1026 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to resume on 10/5/88
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 10:26:12 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA22661; Mon, 26 Sep 88 10:23:56 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 10:23:56 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809261723.AA22661@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to resume on 10/5/88
FormFeed will resume on Thursday, October 5, at noon in room 252.
Same basic plan as last year -- every other week, no agenda.
If you have a problem with the time, please let me know.
Matt
∂26-Sep-88 1041 @RELAY.CS.NET:ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 10:41:30 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ab16710; 26 Sep 88 6:39 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ai06731; 26 Sep 88 6:28 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA04930; Mon, 26 Sep 88 16:41:25 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Mon, 26 Sep 88 15:47:19 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA02867; Mon, 26 Sep 88 14:39:34 JST
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00823; Mon, 26 Sep 88 12:15:23 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00407; Mon, 26 Sep 88 12:04:47 jst
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 12:04:47 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809260304.AA00407@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: JMC%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
CLT%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net@u-tokyo.junet,
masahiko%cs.chalmers.se%relay.cs.net@u-tokyo.junet
Status: R
Dear Professor McCarthy,
If you can come to Sendai on the way to attend the events of Kyoto Prize,
Professor Sato and I are please to have a small workshop on "Logic and
Computation",having informal friendly talks and discussions with you and
your wife,Dr. Talcott.
November 4 and 5 will be convenient for us.
At present the folowing Japanese people are in our mind.
M. Sato, S. Goto, Prof. Sato's former students(Sakurai,Kameyama,Tatsuta),
S. Hayashi(Kyoto), Several ICOT researchers(Takayama,Arima)
Several others(less than 5)
If this is possible for you, I will talk with INAMORI Foundation and Prof.
Nagao.
I will support your family's stay at Sendai and travel between Tokyo and
Sendai.
I would like to know if you are able to come to Sendai and this workshop
is possible.
When this is possible I will try to reserve a comfortable seminar room.
------------------------------------------------
to Professor Sato,
From September 28 to October 4 I will go to Kyoto and Tokyo.I appreciate
if you would get touch with John on the matter.
According to Segami of Inamori, John is planning to arrive at Kyoto on
November 8 and leaving Kyoto(or Narita?) on November 15.
------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Takayasu Ito
∂26-Sep-88 1148 JK
∂23-Sep-88 1751 JMC re: meeting
[In reply to message rcvd 23-Sep-88 16:54-PT.]
On that day, the MAD Board of Directors meets all day.
------------
Oh dear. I have been going back and forth for weeks with these
guys. My inclination is to proceed and then set up the next meeting
at Stanford --- I suspect their schedules will become more flexible
once they have seen a human being.
Confidentially speaking, a propos MAD, as a board member
with corporate responsibility I would ask following types of questions:
(My intention is not to stir things up nor to sabotage; these kinds
of questions must be answered *if* MAD is to be taken seriously as
a business. Of course, as a tax deduction it can function forever
in the present mode.)
(1) How is the funding of MAD's day-to-day operations happening
now? The current run rate is about 700K a month.
Why is it that one can pay for hiring and people's
salaries, but no capital expenses such as hardware
necessary for MAD's next set of products? Due to
unpaid bills, MAD can no longer talk to any of the
first-tier suppliers.
(2) How much corporate debt? Personal debt? Equity?
Why is it that the latest stock offering did not succeed?
Why was it priced at 5$/share, causing a total valuation
of 100M, for a company with no revenues?
(3) Why is it that there is no revenue? If I recall correctly,
JN promised 10M to his board last year. So far, there is
0M. CEO's have been replaced for lesser cause. Why is it
that the "investors" continue to support the present setup?
If the sales were lackluster, one could comfortably
blame sales & marketing. Given that they are approximately 0,
there must be a more fundamental reason.
Example: MAD has had a perfectly good 386 based machine to
sell for almost a year. Yet, to my knowledge, less than 6
such units have been sold so far. At the same time equally
small companies like EVEREX are making millions out of this
opportunity.
(4) What will be done to create a more stable image of MAD
both internally and externally? The current perception
both inside and outside is that MAD's corporate strategy
changes about once every 2 months. This instability and
lack of direction has caused people to start considering
their options --- some have left, many more are thinking
about it.
(5) What will be done to focus and streamline the company?
The current situation consists of a large number of
vaguely related projects, none of which MAD can support
fully due to lack of funds. And why is it that MAD has
supported and continues to support an almost pure research
project, the equivalents of which are being supported
by public funds both in the US and Europe?
∂26-Sep-88 1254 @ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM:rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM wave the rules
Received: from ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 12:54:37 PDT
Received: from RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM by ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 322349; Sun 25-Sep-88 09:37:44 EDT
Received: from TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM by RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 71359; Sun 25-Sep-88 06:34:12 PDT
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 88 06:33 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: wave the rules
To: rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
cc: math-fun@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM
In-Reply-To: <19880925101809.4.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Message-ID: <19880925133317.5.RWG@TSUNAMI.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
Character-Type-Mappings: (1 0 (NIL 0) (:FIX :ROMAN NIL) "CPTFONT")
Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONT
bcc: "jmc@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, "dek@sail.stanford.edu"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM,
"rcs@tis-w.arpa"@ELEPHANT-BUTTE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
[Warning (in case you see these out of order):
Contains answers to my previous message on this Subject.]
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 88 03:18 PDT
From: Bill Gosper <rwg@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbolics.COM>
The knotted torus I sent around last year would have been more nearly
minimal in length if the sine wave modulating the z coordinate were
replaced by a wave which rose more steeply at 0, 2π, 4π, ..., and
fell less steeply at π, 3π, 5π, ... .
Design a neat, continuous, period 2π, unit amplitude function, whose slope
is ∞ at where sin's is 1, but finite where sin's is -1.
The one I found wasε1 ε0f(x):=ε1SIN(x+SIN(x))↑(1/3).
ε0 Is there anything magic about that particular exponent?
Yes. Near π, ε1SIN(x+SIN(x))ε0 is near (π-x)↑3, so any other power would put
an inflection point at π. Try plotting! What is the slope of f at π?
(Mathematica doesn't know, and Macsyma needs TLIMIT.)
What can you say about the Fourier series for the base?
Bessel functions again!
Since sin(1 sin(t)) = 2 Sum J[2n+1](1) sin((2n+1)t)
n≥0
and cos(1 sin(t)) = J[0](1) + 2 Sum J[2n](1) cos(2nt),
n≥0
(as in FM), the trig just gives us contiguous Bessels at z=1.
It would be something if f itself comes out in Bessels.
Now, EQUALSCALE:TRUE, PARAMPLOT(f(x+π/2),f(x),x,0,2π) draws a fig. (Call this
Fig 1, after Kliban.) Does it really have a cusp?
∂26-Sep-88 1451 ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU Formfeed to resume on October 6, not the 5th ...
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 14:51:17 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA10040; Mon, 26 Sep 88 14:49:03 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 14:49:03 PDT
From: Matthew L. Ginsberg <ginsberg@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809262149.AA10040@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: csd@polya.Stanford.EDU, feed@polya.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Formfeed to resume on October 6, not the 5th ...
... on account of how the 5th is a Wednesday and the 6th isn't. My
apologies to anyone who was confused --
Matt
∂26-Sep-88 1604 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU meeting
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 16:04:26 PDT
Received: from Ignorant.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA08327; Mon, 26 Sep 88 16:01:04 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 16:01 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: meeting
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <19880926230115.7.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
The next meeting will be this wednesday, September 28, at noon, in MJH
301. Kelly will tell us about the state of his system, and the rest of
us will try to bring each other up to date on the current status of the
project.
Igor
∂26-Sep-88 1814 Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM Re: Computational Approaches to Scientific Discovery
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 18:14:31 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 26 SEP 88 17:41:09 PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 17:39 PDT
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Computational Approaches to Scientific Discovery
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
cc: shrager.PA@Xerox.COM
In-Reply-To: <Sh#vo@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <19880927003937.2.SHRAGER@ZONKER.parc.xerox.com>
Line-fold: no
Thank you for your interest in the symposium. You paper on creativity
sounds very interesting. It would be very helpful if you could send a
copy along to me at the address below.
Cheers,
Jeff
-----
Jeff Shrager
Xerox PARC
Architectures of Intelligence Program
3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA
94304
∂26-Sep-88 1838 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 26 Sep 88 18:36:36 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Mon 26 Sep 88 18:34:09-PDT
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 88 18:30:57 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12432412938.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12433768622.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Tuesday the 3rd (not 12th as I erroneously typed) is good for everyone so far,
except that Andy Goldberg teaches at 11:00. Could we start earlier on the 3rd,
say 9:00?
Tom R.
-------
∂27-Sep-88 0934 hayes.pa@Xerox.COM coordination theory
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 09:34:18 PDT
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 27 SEP 88 09:22:14 PDT
Date: 27 Sep 88 09:20 PDT
From: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: coordination theory
To: JMC@sail.stanford.edu, lrosenberg@note.nsf.gov
cc: hayes.pa@Xerox.COM
Message-ID: <880927-092214-5833@Xerox>
Can anyone give me a pointer as to what coordination theory IS ? A reference
to the "three major workshops" would help: are there proceedings? It is hard
to keep up with everything, but I have never heard of it.
Pat
∂27-Sep-88 0950 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 09:50:44 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 27 Sep 88 09:48:07-PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 09:44:48 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12433768622.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12433934982.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
I seem to have lots of problems reading a calendar and accurately transferring
what is there to a message -- hope it is just time pressure and not incipient
Alzheimer's...
To clarify, the date/time at which I would like to schedule our Facilities
Committee meeting is Tuesday, October 4 from 9:00 - 11:00.
Tom R.
-------
∂27-Sep-88 0951 JK latest rev
I modified your abstract slightly, mainly to generalize it somewhat.
Do you want to send it to the DARPA PI Meeting? If so, we probably
have to get it out tomorrow.
∂27-Sep-88 0954 JK latest rev
forgot, it is in buscom.tex[1,jk].
∂27-Sep-88 1047 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 10:47:47 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 27 Sep 88 10:45:02-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA04908; Tue, 27 Sep 88 08:57:44 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 08:57:44 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809271557.AA04908@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Cc: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Mon, 26 Sep 88 18:30:57 PDT <12433768622.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Facilities Committee Meeting
9 A.M. is fine for me
-Jim
∂27-Sep-88 1048 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 10:48:30 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 27 Sep 88 10:45:12-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA05045; Tue, 27 Sep 88 08:59:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 08:59:47 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809271559.AA05045@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Cc: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Mon, 26 Sep 88 18:30:57 PDT <12433768622.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Facilities Committee Meeting
One problem is that Tuesday is the 4th, not the 3rd. I am available for
the 4th, hopefully that is the correct date?
-Jim
∂27-Sep-88 1136 CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU re: NBC and Olympics
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 11:36:15 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 11:30:32 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: NBC and Olympics
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <1ui8sh@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Postal-Address: 1802 Hackett Ave.; Mountain View, CA 94043-4431
Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
Message-ID: <12433954230.65.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Other than the fact that it detracts from the credibility of news
reporting, I don't object. It seems to be that every time I see a
news report on something I have personal knowledge, the reporters
screw up.
-------
∂27-Sep-88 1156 JK edi
Talked to Levinthal --- he already took the liberty of passing the
email version of the proposal to someone he knows at GM (more precisely,
EDS) .... I promised him a hardcopy version and suggested that you, him,
and me meet sometime next week. He agreed. He has a meeting October 6
with SIMA board and would like to pass our proposal around.
His only condition for helping us that we mention SIMA --- this seems
reasonable so I agreed.
∂27-Sep-88 1244 VAL Marek
I received the following request from Wiktor Marek. I suspect your answer will
be no, but I'd like to check with you before replying to him.
It happens that I am already 5 years in KY and this is my 6th
year. Consequently, I will have a sabbatical leave with half pay
next year. Needless to say my thoughts migrate in the direction
of West, Stanford in particular.
Here is my question: Is there a chance to get some sort of
appointment with you and the group? Is there a way to get
some support (of course I could teach).
You probably know what I am doing right now; I found that
stable semantics is identical with the natural interpretation
in Default Logic and I cooked another interpretation which,
strange enough, moves supported models to the expansions.
I would like to work on the crossroads of LP and NM reasonings-
and there is no better place than Stanford for it.
Sincerely,
w.
∂27-Sep-88 1341 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU:carol@lucid.com new new-qlisp
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 13:40:28 PDT
Received: from LUCID.COM by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA01398; Tue, 27 Sep 88 13:36:03 PDT
Received: from trilogy ([192.9.200.44]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA00407g; Tue, 27 Sep 88 12:37:03 PST
Received: by trilogy id AA08773g; Tue, 27 Sep 88 13:38:26 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 13:38:26 PDT
From: Carol Sexton <carol@lucid.com>
Message-Id: <8809272038.AA08773@trilogy>
To: qlisp@go4.stanford.edu
Subject: new new-qlisp
I installed a new new-qlisp. Let me know
if you encounter any problems using this
lisp.
Carol
∂27-Sep-88 1445 JK
John, FYI ---
-------
∂27-Sep-88 1444 lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov
Received: from note.nsf.gov by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 14:44:10 PDT
To: Jussi Ketonen <JK@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
In-reply-to: Your message of 23 Sep 88 11:24:00 -0700.
<1ogp1c@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 17:25:34 -0400
From: Laurence Rosenberg <lrosenbe@note.nsf.gov>
Message-ID: <8809271725.aa11366@note.nsf.gov>
Thanks for your inquiry about the relevance of your proposal for the special
initiative. I would be delighted to receive that proposal. It certainly fits the
the intent of the initiative. I'll be back at my office next week, so if you
want a more detailed communication let me know and I'll be happy to respond
in greater detail, then.
Larry
∂27-Sep-88 1457 @Score.Stanford.EDU:ball@polya.Stanford.EDU Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 14:57:35 PDT
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Tue 27 Sep 88 14:54:55-PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA28711; Tue, 27 Sep 88 14:15:06 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 14:15:06 PDT
From: Jim Ball <ball@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809272115.AA28711@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
Cc: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: TC Rindfleisch's message of Tue, 27 Sep 88 09:44:48 PDT <12433934982.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Facilities Committee Meeting
I'll be there.
-Jim
∂27-Sep-88 1453 VAL
I have a few comments on the paper. - Vladimir
∂27-Sep-88 1546 scherlis@vax.darpa.mil MORE ADMINISTRIVIA
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 15:46:26 PDT
Received: from sun45.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA10140; Tue, 27 Sep 88 18:26:41 EDT
Posted-Date: Tue 27 Sep 88 18:26:47-EDT
Received: by sun45.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA06988; Tue, 27 Sep 88 18:26:49 EDT
Date: Tue 27 Sep 88 18:26:47-EDT
From: William L. Scherlis <SCHERLIS@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: MORE ADMINISTRIVIA
To: SW-PI@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: nfields@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <591402407.0.SCHERLIS@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
To the Software and Algorithms PIs:
Well, another administrative request has surfaced, though this
is easier to satisfy than taking a red-eye flight here for a half-hour
briefing! Mark Pullen has asked the program managers to send the
message below to all the PIs in their communities. The material
requested is entirely financial and contractual, so you can forward
this directly to your financial manager. Please take care to use the
correct syntax in your response. Thanks!
We'll send you your "task code" designator later. If
you don't get it by Monday, please send a note to Nicole
Fields (nfleids@vax.darpa.mil 202-694-5800).
Bill
===============================================================
MEMO FOR PI OF TASK: ___________________, TASK CODE: __
The Director of DARPA has initiated a program to increase visibility
of project funding. Because the information we need for this
purpose is not available in a timely form, we are asking each
Principal Investigator to provide the funding information listed
below. In the future we will ask for updates on a quarterly basis.
(We know many of you recently provided some of this information.
Please be patient and report again in the new format.)
The following information is required, by email if possible, not
later than 15 Oct 88. All amounts are in thousands of dollars.
1. Task Name (from first line of this message)
2. PI Name
3. Task Code (from first line of this message)
4. Contract number
5. Contract start date
6. Contract value (without options)
7. Total spending authority received to date
8. Total amount billed as of 30 Sep 88
9. Amount billed for recurring costs (personnel, etc.), Jan thru Mar 88
10. Amount billed for recurring costs, Apr thru Jun 88
11. Amount billed for recurring costs, Jul thru Sep 88
12. Amount billed for non-recurring costs (equipment, etc.) Jan thru
Sep 88 (if 9 thru 12 are not yet billed, use best estimate)
13. Amount expected to be billed for recurring costs, Oct thru Dec 88
14. Amount expected to be billed for recurring costs, Jan thru Mar 89
15. Amount expected to be billed for recurring costs, Apr thru Jun 89
16. Amount expected to be billed for recurring costs, Jul thru Sep 89
17. Amount expected to be billed for recurring costs, Oct thru Dec 89
18. Amount expected to be billed for non-recurring costs, Oct 88
thru Dec 89
NOTE: 13 thru 18 should represent the spending authority you need
for the period Oct 88 thru Dec 89.
We plan to input directly to our database from your message, so please
use the item numbers above, and separate data from description with a
colon. If any item is zero, please provide it anyhow. Example:
1. Task Name: Advanced Computing Environment
2. PI Name: J.J. Smith
3. Task Code: Z1
4. Contract number: N00139-87-C-0876
5. Contract start date: 1 Dec 87
6. Contract value: $811K
7. Spending auth received: $225K
8. Billed as of 30 Sep 88: $167K
9. Recurring exp Jan-Mar 88: $31K
10. Recurring exp Apr-Jun 88: $46K
11. Recurring exp Jul-Sep 88: $58K
12. Non-recurring exp Jan-Sep 88: $32K
13. Recurring exp Oct-Dec 88: $48K
14. Recurring exp Jan-Mar 89: $50K
15. Recurring exp Apr-Jun 89: $53K
16. Recurring exp Jul-Sep 89: $61K
17. Recurring exp Oct-Dec 89: $49K
18. Non-recurring exp Oct 88-Dec 89: $84K
Please send your report to pi-data@vax.darpa.mil, not later than
15 Oct 88. Questions on the report procedure may also be directed
to that address, or to Juanita Walton at 202-694-4001.
If you do not have email available, mail to PI-Data,
DARPA/ISTO, 1400 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22209.
We try to keep the reporting workload on the research community as
light as possible. Thank you for helping us support you.
(Program Manager's name goes here)
-------
-------
-------
∂27-Sep-88 1728 @Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU,@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU curious, but true
Received: from Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 17:28:43 PDT
Received: from Ignorant.Stanford.EDU by Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA02530; Tue, 27 Sep 88 17:25:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 17:25 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: curious, but true
To: qlisp@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU
Message-Id: <19880928002507.3.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
Recently I ran the GCD test suite (which consists of finding
GCD of polynomials of varying degrees), first as a class 1 process
(which timeshares with other processors using the cluster) and then as a
class 5 process (which hogs the cluster). One would expect that the CPU
times in class 5 mode would be uniformly smaller then those in the
class 1 mode, since when a process is swapped out of the cluster, the
cache is flushed, and when the process is swapped back in, it spends a
goodly portion of its alotted cluster time taking cache misses.
Not so! Small problems (GCDs of polynomials of small degree) do, indeed,
exhibit the predicted behavior (20-30% performance improvement), but the larger
problems (GCDs of polynomials of high degree) show an actual 5-10%
performance degradation. Does anyone have any clue as to how that could
possibly happen?
Igor
∂27-Sep-88 2319 @RELAY.CS.NET:ceb@bernina.uucp comp.ai.digest submission: Followup on JMC/Fishwick Diffeq
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 27 Sep 88 23:19:26 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae18892; 28 Sep 88 0:29 EDT
Received: from switzerland by RELAY.CS.NET id aa20078; 28 Sep 88 0:19 EDT
Received: from ean by SWITZERLAND.CSNET id a027540; 28 Sep 88 2:23 MET
Date: 28 Sep 88 2:21 +0100
From: ceb@ethz.uucp
To: ailist@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-ID: <ok880928022118>
Subject: comp.ai.digest submission: Followup on JMC/Fishwick Diffeq
>From ceb Wed Sep 28 02:21:09 MET 1988 remote from ethz
>for Robots Interchange
Apropos using diffeqs or other mathematical models to imbue a robot
with the ability to reason about observation of continuous phenomena:
in John McCarthy's message <cdydW@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, JMC states that
(essentially) diffeqs are not enough and must be imbedded in
"something" larger, which he calls "common sense knowledge". He also
state that diffeqs are inappropriate because "noone could acquire the
initial [boundary?] conditions and integrate them fast enough".
I would like to pursue this briefly, by asking the question:
Just how much of this something-larger (JMC's framework of common
sense knowledge) could be characterized as descriptions
of domains in which such equations are in force, and in describing
the interactions between neighboring domains?
I ask because I observe in my colleagues (and sometimes in myself)
that an undying fascination with the diffeq "as an art form" can lead
one think about them `in vitro', i. e. isolated on paper, with all
those partial-signs standing so proud. You have to admit, the idea as
such gets great mileage: you have a symbolic representation of
something continuous, and we really don't have another good way of
doing this. Notwithstanding, in order to use them, you've got to
describe a domain, the bc's, etc.
This bias towards setting diffeqs up on a stage may also stem from
practical grounds as well: in numerical-analysis work, even having
described the domain and bc's you're not home free yet - the equations
have to be discretized, which leads to huge, impossible-to-solve
matrices, etc. There are many who spend the bulk of their working
lives trying to find discretizations which behave well for certain
ill-behaved but industrially important equations. Such research is
done by trial-and-error, with verification through computer
simulation. In such simulations, to try out new discretizations, the
same simple sample domains are used over and over again, in order to
try to get results which *numerically* agree with some previously
known answer or somebody elses method. In short, you spend a lot of
time tinkering with the equation, and the domain gets pushed to the
back of your mind.
In the case of the robot, two things are different:
1. No one really cares about the numerical accuracy of the results:
something qualitative should be suffficient.
2. The modelled domains are *not* simple, and do not stay the same.
There can also be quite a lot of them.
I would wager that, if the relative importance of modelling the domain
and modelling the intrinsic behavior that takes place within it were
turned around, and given that you could do a good enough job of
modelling the such domains, then:
a. only a very small subset of not scientifically accurate but very
easy to integrate diffeqs would be needed to give good performance,
b. in this case, integration in real time would be a possibility,
and,
c. something like this will be necessary. I believe this supports the
position taken by Fishwick, as near as I understood it.
One might wonder idly if the Navier-Stokes equation (even in laminar
form) would be among the small set of subwager a. Somehow I doubt it,
but this is not really so important, and certainly need not be decided
in advance. It may even be that you can get around using anything at
all close to differential equations.
What does seem important, though, is the need to be able to
geometrically describe domains at least qualitatively accurately, and
this `on the fly'. I am not claiming this would cover all "common
sense knowledge", just a big part of it.
ceb
P. S. I would also be interested to know of anyone working on such
modelling --- this latter preferably by mail.
∂28-Sep-88 1139 @Score.Stanford.EDU:RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 88 11:38:25 PDT
Received: from SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU by SCORE.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; Wed 28 Sep 88 11:34:25-PDT
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 11:11:55 PDT
From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Facilities Committee Meeting
To: Facil@Score.Stanford.EDU
cc: Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, Faculty@Score.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: <12432412938.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <12434212986.27.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
OK, we should be set to hold the first meeting of the CSD Facilities Committee
this academic year on Tuesday, October 4, from 9:00 - 11:00 in MJH 252. The
agenda will be:
1) "State of CSD/CF" report:
- Technical status
- Fiscal status
- Staffing status and support commitments
- System loading/usage profiles, trends, and cost recovery patterns
2) Plans for this coming year:
- Network server/workstation upgrades and expansions
- Continued (cost-effective?) support of old systems (e.g., SAIL and SCORE)
- R&D projects on-going and planned (e.g., fiber optics networks?).
- Vendor relations and initiatives (DEC, SUN, Apple, NeXT, etc.)
- User charges and access policies.
3) Longer range plans for NWC.
4) General discussion.
Tom R.
-------
∂28-Sep-88 1156 MPS Check
I need a check made out to the Univ. of Penn/SEAS for
11.09. The reports you want will be sent only after
receipt of payment.
Pat
∂28-Sep-88 1434 MPS phone call
Maria Arlock, Nafeh's secretary would like you to call her
408-943-1711
Pat
∂28-Sep-88 1528 MPS
J. Schwartz returned your call. He can be reached at
home on 703-525-4158
∂28-Sep-88 1537 BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU Reports, ARPA Umbrella Contract
Received: from Score.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 88 15:37:11 PDT
Date: Wed 28 Sep 88 15:34:42-PDT
From: Betty Scott <BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Reports, ARPA Umbrella Contract
To: Binford@Coyote.Stanford.EDU, Cheriton@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU,
ZM@Sail.Stanford.EDU, JMC@Sail.Stanford.EDU,
Wiederhold@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU, DCL@Sail.Stanford.EDU
cc: CLT@Sail.Stanford.EDU, RBA@Sail.Stanford.EDU, BScott@Score.Stanford.EDU,
Bergman@Score.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <12434260824.36.BSCOTT@Score.Stanford.EDU>
I had a long message from John Pucci today. There is a new Contracting
Officer at SPAWAR, a Michael Geist, who has issued an utimatum about the
quarterly status reports required by the contract. These reports are to
include a financial report on the costs incurred during the quarter. To my
knowledge, very few such reports have been submitted. If you have current
tasks on the contract or completed tasks on which you did not provide a final
report, I strongly urge that you prepare and submit reports as soon as possible.
As soon as I can get a few other points of Pucci's message clarified, I will
send another message to you, collectively if it involves all of you, otherwise
individually.
Betty
-------
∂28-Sep-88 1726 @IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU:rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU Computer Algebra System
Received: from IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 88 17:26:00 PDT
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 17:22 PDT
From: Igor Rivin <rivin@GANG-OF-FOUR.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Computer Algebra System
To: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Message-ID: <19880929002249.1.RIVIN@IGNORANT.Stanford.EDU>
This might help you describe our Computer Algebra work to people at
DARPA. Kelly gave a description of his system today, and here is a
summary of some of its features:
1. It comprises about 200 pages (12000 lines) of Qlisp code.
2. It implements the Risch indefinite integration algorithm.
In order to support the Risch algorithm it was necessary to implement
polynomial simplification, polynomial arithmetic, rational function
arithmetic, arithmetic over transcedental and algebraic extension
fields, solution of linear systems of algebraic and differential
equations and partial fraction decomposition.
The system was designed with a view to parallelism, and is now being
made parallel, to which end new parallel constructs are being designed,
as well as data structures more amenable to parallelism then the list
representation traditional in the field. Preliminary investigations
reveal that on even modestly-sized benchmarks speedups of about 3 out of
8 can be had with almost no effort, indicating that potential
parallelism is far greater. The serial performance is similar to that of
MACSYMA on the Symbolics 3600.
Hope this helps,
Igor.
∂28-Sep-88 1735 RPG Qlisp
To: boesch@VAX.DARPA.MIL
CC: squires@VAX.DARPA.MIL, scherlis@VAX.DARPA.MIL,
JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CLT@SAIL.Stanford.EDU,
pullen@VAX.DARPA.MIL
Brian, I sent you a note a while back mentioning what Lucid's plans for
Qlisp in the presence of no information regarding funding. This message is
essentially a repeat of that message, which is being sent because October 1
is Saturday.
Since June 1 we have been working full steam on Qlisp with 4 people at
Lucid without payment under the belief that one or the other of our
funding attempts would work. I was able to convince those who need
convincing at Lucid that we should continue to work under this belief
until October 1. Right now I have no definitive statement or assurance
that any further funding is forthcoming nor that any work done between
June 1 and September 30 would be reimbursed. So next week all but 1
person at Lucid will be re-assigned to other projects. I have no control
over this decision.
I will be able to keep 1 person on Qlisp until January 1, but then I will
have to abandon the work altogether. Lucid has no plans to commercialize
Qlisp.
-rpg-
∂28-Sep-88 1944 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU Visit Oct 4.
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 88 19:44:12 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Wed, 28 Sep 88 19:40:23 PDT
From: jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Dieter H. Jundt)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1988 19:40:22 PDT
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Visit Oct 4.
Dear Professor McCarthy:
I am a graduate student in Applied Physics and am writing to you on
behalf of my brother in law who lives and workes in Germany.
His name is Philip Dellafera and he works with the Forschungsinstitut
der Bundespost in Darmstadt, Germany. He is working on User interfaces
for object oriented environment and uses LISP as the primary language.
He is in San Diego at this time at OOPSLA and will visit Stanford next
week Monday and Tuesday (Oct 3 and 4) . Professor Nillson set up a
meeting with Philip Tuesday, October 4th at 10:00.
I would be very happy if you could arrange to meet with him on tuesday as
well to discuss topics related to your work (half an hour to one hour) .
Please let me know if it is possible and when it would be convenient for
you.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sicerely,
Dieter Jundt
∂28-Sep-88 2259 hoffman@csli.Stanford.EDU a follow up appointment?
Received: from csli.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Sep 88 22:59:26 PDT
Received: by csli.Stanford.EDU (4.0/4.7); Wed, 28 Sep 88 22:59:24 PDT
Date: Wed 28 Sep 88 22:59:24-PDT
From: Reid Hoffman <HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: a follow up appointment?
To: jmc@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Message-Id: <591515964.0.HOFFMAN@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(242)+TOPSLIB(128)@CSLI.Stanford.EDU>
When will you have time to see me? I need Stoyer's (sp?) phone number and I
would very much like to see the books which you were going to show me. I,
on the other hand, will try to unearth what I found out about von Neumann
for you (and photocopy it.)
thanks
reid
-------
∂29-Sep-88 0853 andy@polya.Stanford.EDU Shuttle landing
Received: from polya.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 88 08:53:43 PDT
Received: by polya.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA29437; Thu, 29 Sep 88 10:29:58 PDT
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 10:29:58 PDT
From: Andy Freeman <andy@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Message-Id: <8809291729.AA29437@polya.Stanford.EDU>
To: jmc@sail
Subject: Shuttle landing
A number of Stanford folk, mainly grad students, are thinking about
driving down to Edwards to watch the shuttle land Monday morning. Are
you interested? Do you have any contacts that would let us in a bit
closer than the average civilian?
-andy
∂29-Sep-88 1137 VAL Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning Seminar
To: "@CS.DIS[1,VAL]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
THE ALTERNATING FIXPOINT OF LOGIC PROGRAMS WITH NEGATION
Allen Van Gelder
University of California at Santa Cruz
Friday, October 7, 3:15pm
MJH 301
The simplest logic programs use only rules in the form of Horn clauses.
That is, each rule can be described as a goal that can be achieved by
achieving zero or more "positive" subgoals. An important practical
extension is the incorporation of "negative" subgoals, as well. The
idea is that the goal of the rule succeeds when the "positive" subgoals
succeed and the "negative" subgoals fail, in some sense.
Horn clause programs have an intuitive and well-accepted semantics
defined by the least fixpoint of an operator that essentially performs
modus ponens reasoning. Several early attempts to extend this operator
to programs with negative subgoals ran into problems of one sort or
another. For example, a fixpoint proposed by Fitting turned out to
yield a language that is unable to express the complement of transitive
closure.
Two recent proposals to improve matters are named "stable models", due
to Gelfond and Lifschitz, and "well-founded partial models", due to
Van Gelder, Ross, and Schlipf.
Both stable models and well-founded partial models were defined somewhat
nonconstructively, in the sense that certain sets could be recognized
if presented, but no algorithm to construct them from the program was
given.
Today I will describe the Alternating Fixpoint of a logic program,
which gives a construction of the well-founded partial model. The
underlying idea is to monotonically build up a set of negative
conclusions until the least fixpoint is reached. From a fixed set of
negative conclusions, we can derive the positive conclusions that
follow (without deriving any further negative ones), by traditional
Horn clause semantics. The name "alternating" was chosen because the
transformation runs in two passes; the first pass transforms an
underestimate of the set of negative conclusions into an (intermediate)
overestimate; the second pass transforms the overestimate into a new
underestimate; the composition of the two passes is monotonic.
If time permits, I will discuss the expressive power of alternating
fixpoints vis-a-vis "inductive fixpoints".
∂29-Sep-88 1427 JK edi
Did you get the proposal out to the PI meeting?
∂29-Sep-88 1606 pullen@vax.darpa.mil Re: Qlisp
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 88 16:06:40 PDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA16794; Thu, 29 Sep 88 19:04:39 EDT
Posted-Date: Thu 29 Sep 88 19:03:38-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA02212; Thu, 29 Sep 88 19:03:40 EDT
Date: Thu 29 Sep 88 19:03:38-EDT
From: Mark Pullen <PULLEN@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: Re: Qlisp
To: RPG@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: boesch@vax.darpa.mil, squires@vax.darpa.mil, scherlis@vax.darpa.mil,
JMC@sail.stanford.edu, CLT@sail.stanford.edu, pullen@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <591577418.0.PULLEN@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
In-Reply-To: <17i#MC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@VAX.DARPA.MIL>
Dick,
I have taken responsibility for working out a way of going forward
on Qlisp. Brian Boesch and Bill Scherlis both have conflicts of
interest in this project, while I have a very strong motivation to
see it work, in that it is important to application of parallel
computing.
I will get back to you very soon on this.
Mark Pullen
-------
∂29-Sep-88 1713 RC.STA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 88 17:13:10 PDT
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 17:12:47 PDT
To: jmc@sail
From: "Stacey Green" <RC.STA@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: Professor John McCarthy
From: Stacey Green, Northeast Asia Forum (rc.sta, or 3-2085)
Date: September 29, 1988
Re: Speaking to the Kankeiren in November
I have relayed your message to Professor Aoki and he would be delighted if
you could give an informal talk (in Osaka, not Kyoto) on artificial
intelligence to a group organized by the Kankeiren, the group that has
spearheaded the fund raising effort for the Stanford Center in Japan. (He
wanted me to emphasize that there is no need to spend any time preparing a new
topic, and no paper is required.)
As you mentioned the need to contact the Inamori Foundation, our staff
member in Kyoto contacted them with this request. They told him that it would
be fine for you to speak, but that they have you booked from November 9-
November 14, the entire duration of your stay.
It also turns out that Dean Gibbons and Dean Byer will be in Japan in
November, and I am trying to coordinate similar requests with them as well.
(It would be optimal to have all three of you, if possible, address the same
group at the same function). I'm not yet sure what Dean Byers' schedule is,
but it looks like Dean Gibbons will be in Japan from the 12th, in the Kansai
area on the 15th and 16th, and heading home home on the 18th. I remember you
mentioned that you had to be in Texas shortly after your return from Japan,
but would it be possible/would you be willing to extend your stay in Japan an
extra day to allow an overlap with Dr. Gibbons on the 15th?
I would be grateful if you could give me a call (3-2085) or send an e-mail
message to me at rc.sta. Thank you for your help.
Stacey Green
∂29-Sep-88 1901 helen@psych.Stanford.EDU Saturday
Received: from psych.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 88 19:01:19 PDT
Received: by psych.Stanford.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 29 Sep 88 18:56:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 18:56:01 PDT
From: helen@psych.Stanford.EDU (Helen Cunningham)
To: JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Saturday
Oh, ok. Well at least I hadn't forgotten, even with all the excitement
of a new job. Let's take a rain check for, maybe, next Saturday?
-helen
∂29-Sep-88 2229 jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU re: Visit Oct 4.
Received: from sierra.STANFORD.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 29 Sep 88 22:29:08 PDT
Received: by sierra.STANFORD.EDU (3.2/4.7); Thu, 29 Sep 88 22:25:11 PDT
From: jundt@sierra.STANFORD.EDU (Dieter H. Jundt)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1988 22:25:10 PDT
To: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: re: Visit Oct 4.
In-Reply-To: Your message of 28 Sep 88 2145 PDT
11am is a good time. I will notify Philip so that he will meet you in your
office.
Thank you very much
Dieter Jundt
∂30-Sep-88 0742 boyer@rascal.ics.utexas.edu Schwartz
Received: from emx.utexas.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 88 07:42:43 PDT
Posted-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 88 09:40:54 CDT
Received: by emx.utexas.edu (5.54/5.51)
id AA31316; Fri, 30 Sep 88 09:44:31 CDT
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 88 09:40:54 CDT
From: boyer@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Bob Boyer)
Message-Id: <8809301440.AA13828@rascal.ics.utexas.edu>
Received: by rascal.ics.utexas.edu (3.2/4.22)
id AA13828; Fri, 30 Sep 88 09:40:54 CDT
To: jmc@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Schwartz
Reply-To: boyer@cs.utexas.edu
Well, Schwartz may not be good for AI as practiced in the past, but it
appears that he thinks that a major program in theorem-proving,
starting with set theory, would be a good thing to fund if it is
likely to be doable. I got this from Moore, who spent a half hour
with him on Monday, so call Moore if you want more details. Since set
theory is something towards which you have always been sympathetic, I
thought you might be interested. I suspect that an approach by
Ketonen, for example, could be well received.
Congratulations, by the way, on your extremely well deserved award
from Japan.
∂30-Sep-88 1350 CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
Received: from forsythe.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 88 13:50:32 PDT
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 88 13:50:04 PDT
To: jmc@sail
From: "Rebecca Lasher" <CN.MCS@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
John,
One of your staff members, Igor Rivin has been consistently
negligent in returning library materials. He ignors messages sent
on score and even when I walk over and put a handwritten message on
his keyboard. I am at a loss. I realize he is leaving soon and I
note with grief that he has some books in his bookshelf from
libraries of Yale and SRI (I believe). Can you help me get Igor to
return the materials?
Rebecca Lasher
Math/CS Library
∂30-Sep-88 1615 schwartz@vax.darpa.mil DARPA/ISTO PI MEETING
Received: from vax.darpa.mil by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 30 Sep 88 16:15:21 PDT
Received: from sun30.darpa.mil by vax.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA19780; Fri, 30 Sep 88 18:06:36 EDT
Posted-Date: Fri 30 Sep 88 18:05:29-EDT
Received: by sun30.darpa.mil (5.54/5.51)
id AA03399; Fri, 30 Sep 88 18:05:33 EDT
Date: Fri 30 Sep 88 18:05:29-EDT
From: Jack Schwartz <SCHWARTZ@vax.darpa.mil>
Subject: DARPA/ISTO PI MEETING
To: ISTO-PI-LIST@vax.darpa.mil
Cc: ISTO-AGENTS@vax.darpa.mil
Message-Id: <591660329.0.SCHWARTZ@SUN30.DARPA.MIL>
Mail-System-Version: <SUN-MM(217)+TOPSLIB(128)@SUN30.DARPA.MIL>
Dear PI,
We are in the process of mailing the brochure for the upcoming
PI Meeting (14-18 November). It includes information on
agenda, hotel reservations, etc. If you don't receive the
brochure by 7 October you should contact pimeet@vax.darpa.mil
or call Juanita Walton at 202-694-4001.
Here are a few highlights from the brochure:
Agenda: Meeting starts at 2:00 PM on 14 November. The first
afternoon consists of overview talks by leading members of
the community from AI, parallel computing, and distributed systems/
networking/C3. The next three days have research presentations
in the mornings, parallel discussion sessions on new ideas
in the afternoons, and nationally known speakers at lunch and
dinner. The morning sessions are organized as vertical slices of
ISTO research areas. There should be time for informal discussions
as well. The final morning will consist of presentations by DARPA
staff on program management and new plans with opportunity for
interaction.
Attendance: The PI plus one (optional) other appropriate
person is invited. (If in doubt, contact your DARPA Program
manager.) Government office/agency invitations are also limited
to two persons.
Registration: By mail. Fee $175, covers three lunches, reception,
and two dinners.
Hotel: Hyatt Regency DFW, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.
Travel: Discounts thru American Airlines.
Audio/Visual: Overhead projector and 35mm available.
Lobby Displays: Limited to video tapes. We will provide VHS
playback equipment. If you bring a tape, please plan to leave
the tape with us -- we need this sort of material to promote
our programs.
Jack Schwartz
-------